137 Vikram ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Upasna Dhawan, Asst. A.G., Haryana Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nischal C.Manchanda, Advocate Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No.MCM/ENF/2026/1958 dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondents under Section 408A (1) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. 2 Admittedly, the petitioner has responded to the same by filing a reply dated 18.05.2026, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. No order has been passed yet. POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.27 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Counsel for the petitioner relies upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2006 INSC 941 wherein Supreme Court observed as under :- “10 A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable.” 4 In the considered opinion of this Court, ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in Siemens Ltd.’s case (supra) does not advance the cause of the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Municipal authorities by filing reply. Admittedly, the authorities have neither passed any order adjudicating upon the Show Cause Notice, nor have taken any action against the petitioner. Therefore, the ratio of law in Siemens Ltd.’s case (supra), would not be applicable to the present case. 5 That apart, the order passed under Section 408A (1) of the 1994 Act is appealable and the petitioner has a statutory remedy in the form of appeal before the Commissioner in case any adverse order is passed. POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.27 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition which is preemptive in nature. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7 Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8 The competent authority shall decide upon the show cause notice and proceed accordingly in accordance with law. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.27 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document