JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice dated 21.04.2009 Annex. 3 issued by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited to show cause as to why the petitioner's transport firm be not delisted from the list of approved contractors of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the notice impugned. 3. Without showing cause against the notice of respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner straightaway files the instant writ petition before this Court assailing the notice. 4. In Executive Engineer Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, (1996) 1 SCC 327 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that without showing cause against the notice, the respondent therein straightaway filed the writ petition in the High Court and assailed the notice and the eviction proceedings. There was no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of at statutory provisions guaranteed by the Constitution was alleged or proved. On that premises, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such case, for entertaining a writ petition under Art. 226 against a show-cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority had no power or jurisdiction to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then in the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226. 5. In Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr., (2004) 3 SCC 440 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of maintainability to the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the show-cause notice held that writ petition against the show-cause notice issued by Statutory functionaries for violation of the provisions of relevant Acts (in that case FERA and FEMA), is not maintainable unless the Court is satisfied of the nullity of the show-cause notice for want of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to even investigate the facts. The writ petition challenging the show-cause notice should not be entertained as a matter of routine. The writ petition should rather be directed to respond the notice. Whether the notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue and can be initially adjudicated by the authority issuing the notice. 6. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Braltni DrH Sharma and Anr., (1987) 2 SCC 179 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a show-cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show case notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. 7. In Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily, no writ lies against a charge-sheet and show cause. 8. In Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. v. M. Ramalinga Reddy, (2007) 9 SCC 286 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not a case where an order has been passed without application of mind. It is also not a case where the appellant had made up its mind and the notice had been issued only by way of formality. The Tribunal directed the respondent to show his clause Ordinarily, no writ petition would be maintainable at that stage. 9. In Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2007 AIR SCW 607 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Ordinarily, no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice. 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 may be held to be premature. 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 may be 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 final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said, to have any grievance. 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." 10. In view of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the show-cause notice Annex. 3 is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. However, it will open for the petitioner to file a reply and contest the notice Annex. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *******