Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Counsel with Sri Jayant Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "a) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Show Cause Notice No. C.No.v (15)Adj ./M-II/Sai Auto 25/-7/4157 dated 8th May, 2007 (Annexure XI to the writ petition). b) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed against the petitioners in the matter of Central Excise Duty till the matter of exemption is finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court or by the Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Uttaranchal High Court. c) To issue any other Writ, Order or direction as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. d) To award cost of the petition throughout." 3. The petitioners, thus, are seeking quashing of the show-cause notice (Annexure No. 11) issued by respondent No.2. 4. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, placing reliance on the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Trade Tax Officer, SaharanpurVs. Royal Trading Co. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 518, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition against the show-cause notice. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440, while considering the scope of interference in a writ petition filed against a show-cause notice, observed in para-5 : "5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court......... .." 6. In the case of Trade Tax Officer, Saharanpur Vs. Royal Trading Co. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 518, the Apex Court, while reiterating the above view, observed in para 1 : "1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 21-1-2000. The respondent Company were clearing their goods on the basis that they were leather sheets within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A show-cause notice was issued to them claiming that the items cleared by them were not leather sheets and that a higher duty was required to be paid. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the issuance of the show-cause notice. The High Court ignoring the well-settled law that against a mere issuance of a show-cause notice a court should be reluctant to interfere, purported to go into the facts and quashed the show-cause notice in a mechanical way. In our view the approach of the High Court was entirely wrong. All that had been done was that a show cause was issued. After the respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory based on the reply further inquiries could have been made by the appellants. Adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court." 7. All that had been done was that a show cause was issued. After the respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory based on the reply further inquiries could have been made by the appellants. Adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court." 7. Neither in the writ petition it is so pleaded nor it was so argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing that respondent No.2 The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Commissionerate, Meerut-II, Meerut, lacks jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice (Annexure No. 11) to the petitioners. 8. In this view of the matter and following the above-quoted dicta of the Apex Court" we decline to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the show-cause notice (Annexure No. 11 ). 9. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.