Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- Heard, Mr. Jayachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2.With the consent of parties on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3.The petitioner had come before this court seeking for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the show cause notice C. No. V/52/15/160/2000, CX. Adj. dated 25-7-2000 and quash the same as one without jurisdiction and illegal. 4.At the outset, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had come before this Court as against the show cause notice. Mr. Jayachandran contends that the show cause notice has been issued not only to the petitioner, but also another third party and such a show cause notice cannot be issued in terms of the Central Excise Act, and reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Music Time Electro Cottage v. Union of India & Anr. The material portion of the show cause notice reads thus : "Now, therefore, M/s. Komalagoure Textile and M/s. Selvaganapathy Textiles are hereby required to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, 6/7 A.T.D. Street, Race Course, Coimbatore - 641 018 as to why : (a)the extended period under proviso to Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be invoked in this case to demand duty as there appears to be wilful suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty of excise, (b)the duty of Rs. 23, 26, 451/- (Rs. 20, 23, 001/- (BED) and Rs. 3, 03, 450/- (AED) relating to the period 1998-99, should not be demanded from Shri V. Madhu alias Shri C.V. Maathesh, Proprietor of M/s. Komalagoure Textile by invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.(c )the duty of Rs. 48, 73, 996/- (Rs. 42, 38, 257/- BED and Rs. 6, 35, 739/- AED) relating to the period 1999-2000 should not be demanded jointly from Shri V. Madhu alias Shri C.V. Maathesh, Proprietor of M/s. Komalagoure Textile and M/s. Selvaganapathy Textiles, lessee of M/s. Komalagoure Textile by invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (d)the 2500 kgs. of yarn seized on 2-2-2000 valued Rs. 6, 35, 739/- AED) relating to the period 1999-2000 should not be demanded jointly from Shri V. Madhu alias Shri C.V. Maathesh, Proprietor of M/s. Komalagoure Textile and M/s. Selvaganapathy Textiles, lessee of M/s. Komalagoure Textile by invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (d)the 2500 kgs. of yarn seized on 2-2-2000 valued Rs. 2, 08, 000/- should not be confiscated under 1730 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (e)penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Rules, and (f)the interest as stipulated under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be demanded from them till the payment of the duty involved is made. The following parties are also required to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course, Coimbatore 641 018 as to why a penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be imposed on them, for abetting the commissioning of offence. 1.Shri P. Dinesh, S/o Shri R.K. Perumal 80 Manickavasagar Street, Nalver Layout, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore-27. 2.Shri C. Devaraj S/o Shri Chinnasamy, 29 - Ashokar Street, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-641 037." It may be that a common show cause notice has been issued, but in respect of substantial portion of the omissions or commissions or violations or suppressions, it is an individual proceeding. It is also fairly stated that upto a point of time, the petitioner was a lessee in respect of the other textile mill of which the other addressee to whom the show cause notice has been issued is the owner. Therefore, it relates to suppression and it is for a overlapping period. 5.It cannot be stated that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction or illegal and that the respondent has no authority at all to issue the show cause notice. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and keep it pending. It may be that a portion of the duty alleged to have been suppressed and demanded is referable to both viz. the writ petitioner and the lessee. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and keep it pending. It may be that a portion of the duty alleged to have been suppressed and demanded is referable to both viz. the writ petitioner and the lessee. But, it is well open to the petitioner to raise the objections in this respect and the respondent shall consider the said objections.6.In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed and liberty is given to the petitioner to raise objection with respect to the particular demand where it is claimed to be a demand against two licensees which includes the petitioner as well as his lessor, and on the objection being raised, the respondent may consider the objection about the issue of joint show cause notice and, thereafter, if the respondent agrees with the preliminary notice, may issue separate show cause notice for each one of them. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 2712 of 2001 is dismissed.