K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common orders ( 2 ) IN these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the show cause notices issued to them by the respective offiicers. ( 3 ) AS far as the challenge of the per titioners to the Act, a Division Bench of this Court in S. V. Krishnappa v. Munichannappa (1) has repelled the same and has upheld the validity of the Act. Following Krishnappa's case, the challenge, of the petitioners to the Act is rejected. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners strenuously contend, that the impugned show cause notices issued predetermining the nature of the controversy is not in natural justice. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioner. strongly rely on a Division Bench ruling of this court in S. Sanjivi v. State of Karnataka (2) ( 5 ) IN Krishnappa's case, (1) the petitioners while challenging the validity of the Act, had also challenged similar show cause notices issued to them. Even though a specific contention on the validity of the notices does not appear to have been urged, the division Bench has upheld the validity of similar notices evidently on being satisfied that they do not suffer from any infirmity. In this view also the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned notices is liable to be rejected. ( 6 ) THE notices issued to the petitioners are in conformity with the Rules made under the Act called Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and in the form prescribed therein. The Rules contemplate filing of objections to the show cause notices, examination of objections received and their determination, by the authority. On the very terms of the show cause notices, the Act and the rules the officer is bound to hold an enquiry and determine the cause shown before him. The Rules contemplate filing of objections to the show cause notices, examination of objections received and their determination, by the authority. On the very terms of the show cause notices, the Act and the rules the officer is bound to hold an enquiry and determine the cause shown before him. When that is so, it is difficult to hold that the authority has finally and irrevocably pre-determined the matter and the same is violative of the Act and the principles of natural justice. In this view. also the challenge of the petitioners to the show cause notices is without any merit. ( 7 ) EVEN otherwise the facts or the conclusions stated in the impugned notices are purely provisional and cannot be construed as the authority finally determining the matters stated therein. On the very terms of the show cause notices as also in law, it is open to the petitioners to appear before the authority, file their objections on all grounds as are available to them under the Act except the validity of the Act and press those objections before the authority which is bound to examine aind determine the same in accordance with law. ( 8 ) IN Sanjivi a case (2) this Court was not called upon to examine similar notices under the very Act and the rules and, therefore the ratio in that case does not bear on the point. ( 9 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I hold that these writ petitions are liable to be rejected. I, therefore, reject these writ petitions at the preliminary hearing stage without notice to the respondents. But! the petitioners are however, granted one month's time from this day for filing their objections before the concerned authorities,if they have not already filed their objections. --- *** --- .