[2026:RJ-JP:9978] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14614/2025 Rajesh Kudi S/o Shri Nanu Ram Kudi, Proprietor Vinayak Medical And Provision Store Near S.m.s. Hospital, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Singh S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Ward No. 10, Uniyara, District - Tonk Rajasthan. 2. Green Surgical Company Ltd., Plot No. 508-512, Savli Industrial Estate Gidc, Manjusar Vadodra Gujarat Through Its Director 3. Devi Distributors And Surgical, Shop No. 1 And 2 Above G.m. Medical Sunder Market Sawai Man Singh Hospital Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek, Mr. Pranav Pareek, Mr. Kshitiz Sharma, For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/03/2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash and set aside the notice dated 25.09.2025 and also to delete the name of the petitioner from the proceedings before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tonk (for short, ‘the learned DCDRC’) in Consumer Complaint No. 326/2008. 2. The succinct facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, on recommendation of the concerned doctor - Dr. R.C. [2026:RJ-JP:9978] (2 of 6) [CW-14614/2025] Bansiwal, purchased a steel rod, which was manufactured by M/s. Green Surgical Company Limited (for short, ‘respondent No. 2’), from M/s. Devi Distributors and Surgical Shop (for short, ‘respondent No. 3’) on 10.05.2007 in order to set right the fracture in his thighbone. However, after the surgery, when the pain of respondent No. 1 did not subside, it was found that the steel rod had broken. Pursuant to this, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act of 1986’) against the concerned doctor and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The learned DCDRC, vide its order dated 26.03.2009, deleted the name of the concerned doctor from the proceedings and held respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and refund. Upon alleged non-compliance of the said order, respondent No. 1 filed an application on 16.08.2010 under Section 27 of the Act of 1986, in response to which, a reply was filed by the petitioner in the capacity of the authorized representative of respondent No. 2. The petitioner then received a notice to appear before the learned DCDRC, however, when he didn’t appear, an order of arrest warrant was issued against him on 13.10.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared on 20.03.2015 before the learned DCDRC praying for cancellation of the said order but the same was rejected. In response to this, Revision Petition No. 13 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act of 1986 before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tonk (for short, ‘the learned SCDRC’), which came to be dismissed on 14.03.2016, after which, [2026:RJ-JP:9978] (3 of 6) [CW-14614/2025] a restoration application was filed which was also dismissed on 20.05.2016. Another revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the learned ‘NCDRC’) which came to be dismissed on 17.09.2024. Following this, the respondent No. 1 again filed an application on 12.03.2025 under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act of 2019’) before the learned DCDRC for compliance of the order dated 26.03.2009, in response to which, fresh impugned notice dated 25.09.2025 was issued to respondent No. 3 through the petitioner as he being the representative of respondent No. 2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed by respondent No. 2 Company’s director, Dr. Vinay Kumar on 04.11.2015 for dropping the name of the petitioner from the proceedings, in which it was admitted that the petitioner left his job after filing reply to the application dated 16.08.2010 as an authorised representative of respondent No. 2. He further submits that under Section 27 of the Act of 1986, coercive steps could only be taken against judgement debtors and since, the petitioner was not even a party to the original complaint, he cannot be held personally liable for the execution of decree. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. 5. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts on record, the question which [2026:RJ-JP:9978] (4 of 6) [CW-14614/2025] arose for consideration is: ‘Whether the case calls for interference when the petitioner was not diligent in defending his case?’ 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana AIR 2007 Supreme Court 906 has clearly held that mare show-cause notice and charge- sheet does not infringe the writ petition of anyone and therefore, any writ petition against the show-cause notice and charge-sheet is premature. In case of challenge to show-cause notice and charge-sheet, can only be entertained in a case, the same is found to be wholly with jurisdiction. The relevant part of the said judgement in case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Supra) is quoted as under:- “13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. RamdeshKumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987SC 943 etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition maybe held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show- cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a [2026:RJ-JP:9978] (5 of 6) [CW-14614/2025] final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or chargesheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge- sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 7. This Court in the case of Pappu Choudhary v. The Jaipur Development Authority and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13876/2021, decided on 24.08.2023 has observed as under: “3. ...The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Versus Vicco Laboratories, (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 270 held as below:- “31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of [2026:RJ-JP:9978] (6 of 6) [CW-14614/2025] show cause-notice. The interference at the show- cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out.” 8. In various cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held the writ petition, which sought to challenge the show cause notice, as premature. In the present case, the petitioner has made challenge to the show cause notice while he could appear before the concerned authority and submit his explanation before the forum. In the case at hand, the petitioner has challenged the notices issued by the learned DCDRC whereby the petitioner has been asked to appear and explain. It is a well-settled principle of law that the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice has no force and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /36