Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.What is challenged in this writ petition is a mere show cause notice in C.C No. 608 of 1994, dated 29-8-1994, under which the petitioner was called upon to show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the impugned show cause notice, dated 29-8-1994 shows that the authorities have already concluded on certain issues as regards the classification, which is not correct and that no duty can be levied or demanded, without deciding about the classification list filed by the petitioner on 1-3-1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner went on to argue that on the face of it, no action can be taken pursuant to the said show cause notice. In this regard he states that he is supported by the Judgment of the Supreme Court inUOIv.Madhumilan Syntex (P) Ltd., 3.I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the short ground that what is challenged in this writ petition is only a show cause notice, under which an opportunity is provided to the petitioner to show cause and also place all evidence on record that supports him. A reading of the show cause notice, in my view, does not show that the authorities have concluded anything on merits. The statements made therein are for theprima faciepurpose of issuing a show cause notice. They should not be construed as conclusions arrived at by the authorities. It is always open to the petitioner to show cause to the said show cause notice and urge all the contentions that are available to him, as indicated in the show cause notice itself. The petitioner can also place any evidence that supports him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the authorities should decide about the classification list filed by the petitioner as early as on 1-3-1993. It is for the authorities to deal with the said classification list in accordance with law and on its merits but expeditiously. 4.In this view, this writ petition is rejected at the stage of admission, subject to what is stated above.