APHC010023642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1588/2026 Between: 1. SMT. PATIL BHAGYAMMA,, W/O PATIL JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH OF NELAGONDA GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O NELAGONDA VILLAGE, GUNTAKAL MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515001 3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GUNTAKAL MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT- 515801 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 09-01-2026 by the Respondent-2, without granting reasonable time and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of 2 the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside / quash the said Show Cause Notice dated 09-01-2026 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Show Cause Notice dated 09-01-2026 issued by the Respondent-2 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P MADHUKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri P.Madhukar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S.Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. Challenging the show cause notice vide Rc.No.18/2026/B6(PAN) dated 09.01.2026 (Ex.P1), issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the contents of the show cause notice are not clear. He would further contend that sufficient 3 time has not been provided to the petitioner to submit an explanation, and only seven days were provided. 4. Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions of the District Panchayat Officer, Ananthapuramu, dated 20.01.2026, would submit that despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to submit any explanation. No adverse finding or punitive action has been initiated against the petitioner to date. The petitioner did not submit any application seeking an extension of time to submit the explanation. Any further action is subject to inquiry and the outcome thereof. The point for consideration is: a) Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing the show cause notice Ex.P1 is maintainable? b) Whether the time granted to submit an explanation is reasonable? 5. Normally, a writ petition filed challenging the show cause is not maintainable, unless the show cause suffers from jurisdictional errors. A show-cause notice is a preliminary step in the decision-making process, which does not determine rights. A show cause notice has the solemn purpose of informing the person about the material for which a response is being sought concerning a case, which may constitute a breach, for which the person is being directed to submit an explanation. The very purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the recipient to raise objections, if any and the concerned authority is required to address such objections, which is the fundamental facet of the principle of natural justice. 4 6. As seen from the averments in the affidavit, the petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent regarding the issuance of the show cause notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that the show cause notice does not contain all the contentions. In the absence of a challenge to the jurisdiction, abuse of process, violation of principles of natural justice and any statutory provisions, in the considered opinion of this Court, a writ petition challenging the show cause notice is not maintainable. This court fortified its opinion in view of the ratio laid down in Union of India Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana1. 7. In the case at hand, seven days were given to the petitioner to submit an explanation. Whether seven days given to submit the explanation is sufficient or some reasonable time needs to be provided requires consideration. 8. What is the reasonable time to submit an explanation, shall be based upon the seriousness of the issue, in the absence of any time stipulated in the Act. The authorities, normally, are providing opportunity to submit an explanation for either one week or two weeks. The object behind providing time to submit the explanation is that the recipient will issue an appropriate reply to the contents of the notice, if necessary, by collecting necessary information. It is also one of the facets of the Principles of Natural Justice. 1 (2006) 12 SCC 28 5 9. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs. The Chief Election Commissioner2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “63. In Wiseman v. Borneman [(1967) 3 All ER 1945] there was a hint of the competitive claims of hurry and hearing. Lord Reid said: “Even where the decision has to be reached by a body acting judicially, there must be a balance between the need for expedition and the need to give full opportunity to the defendant to see material against him” 10. In Raymond Limited, a Company Incorporated vs. Union of India in W.P.No.26693 of 2023 the Hon’ble High Court of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh observed that the concept of reasonable opportunity demands that a reasonable period of time to reply to the notice should not be less than 15 days, if not more. 11. In Mukesh Mittal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre and others in C.W.P.No.9810 of 2022 a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana observed that there would be no gain saying the assessee ought to have been furnished a reasonable time to respond to the draft assessment order/show cause notice to comply with the principles of natural justice. The same would also be consonant with a fair and transparent procedure. 12. A conspectus of the authorities referred to supra make the things more than discernible that 15 days is reasonable to provide an opportunity to the recipient to show cause to submit an explanation. However, in some statutes, 2 1978 (1) SCC 405 6 the lawmakers fix the time to issue notice and thereafter to submit an explanation. In the absence of the same, the reasonable time, in the considered opinion of this Court, is 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. This court considered an identical issue in Karvadi Anil vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.19226 of 2024 and held that fifteen days is reasonable to submit an explanation. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner will request the authority seeking extension of time to submit a proper explanation. 14. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent to make a necessary application. If the petitioner makes such an application, the learned 2nd respondent shall consider the same and provide a reasonable time. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 20.01.2026 SNI 7 152 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1588 OF 2026 Date: 21.01.2026 SNI