ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Show cause notice under Section 307(2) M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, issued by Respondent No. 2, is the cause, aggrieved whereof the Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking its quashment. 2. Besides, the Petitioner also seeks a direction to Respondents No. 3 to 6 to get the construction, which has led to the issuance of impugned notice, legalised by compounding, in alternate it is sought that, Respondents No. 3 to 6 to return all the money that they have taken by way of rent and the construction cost together with maintenance charge at the rate of 12% interest of the fourth floor. 3. Those second set of reliefs were, however, given up by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the very outset and the challenge is confined, only the show cause notice under Section 307(2) of the Act of 1956. 4. The facts relevant briefly are that, the Petitioner is a tenant in occupation of a building situated at plot No. 21/2 North Civil Lines, Jabalpur owned by Respondents No. 3 to 6. The building consists of a basement ground, first, second and third floors constituting a total carpet area of 24,600 sq. ft. hospital and styled as Marble City Hospital and Research Centre is being functional therein. 5. It is contended by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 6, one of the lessor, was a director of the Petitioner company, in the year 1999, constructed a structure on fourth floor and the Petitioner company was allowed to use the same for getting patients on that floor. It is alleged the money used for construction of floor and other amenities was from the company's fund and an adjustment from monthly rent was accorded to the company. Certain facts and figures are been adverted to in regard to expenditure and their adjustment, but since the validity of notice under Section 307(2) of the Act of 1956 is only questioned, therefore, the same are not gone into. It is the construction of this fourth floor and the use of basement and the open space contrary to the sanction, which prompted Respondent Corporation and its functionaries to issue impugned show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner to justify the use of the premises other than the purpose for which it was sanctioned and unauthorised construction at fourth floor. 6. 6. The impugned show cause notice was issued on 14.8.2008. The Petitioner responded the same by filing its reply/explanation/objection on 19.8.2008 and on the same day files the present writ petition, wherein on 22.8.2008 a status quo was ordered. 7. The Petitioner challenges the notice on grounds, viz.: (i) that the impugned notice is issued by the building officer who is not an authority competent under Section 307, whereunder only Commissioner can initiate such action. (ii) that the issuance of notice is at the behest of the lessor, and therefore, infested with conclusion and is for collateral purpose. 8. Elaborating his submissions learned Counsel for the Petitioner laid emphasise on the provisions of Section 307 of the Act of 1956, whereunder it is the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, who is authorised to issue notice and take action under Section 307 of the Act of 1956. Secondly, it is contended that the action under Section 307 of the Act of 1956 has been initiated for collateral purpose, and in collusion with Respondents No. 3 to 6, because of the MJC No. 21/2008 filed under Section 307 of Act of 1956, and pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereunder relief against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 has been sought for demolition of the construction in question. It is urged that, the Respondents have joined hands and a device has been carved out qua notice under Section 307(2) for an illegal gain. It is accordingly, urged that, the impugned notice thus is liable to be quashed. The Petitioner placed reliance on judgment in AIR 1951 SC 16 , AIR 1957 SC 529 , AIR 1959 SC 725 , AIR 1961 SC 372 , AIR 1971 SC 1228 , to bring home the submissions that a collusive action is an action perverse in law. 9. The Respondents on their turn while refuting the allegation of collusion, raise an objection as to maintainability of the petition against a show cause notice. It is urged, that unless a notice is by an incompetent writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Executive Engineer Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and Ors. (1961) 1 SCC 327 . It is urged, that unless a notice is by an incompetent writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Executive Engineer Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and Ors. (1961) 1 SCC 327 . It is further contended that, besides drawing powers from the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984, the building officer has been delegated the powers by the Commissioner under Section 69(4) of the Act of 1956. 10. Respondents No. 3 to 6 in the unison with the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have to add that the Petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction of the building officer by filing reply to the show cause notice is estopped from challenging the same in writ petition. The Respondents further place reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Special Director and Anr. v. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 1467 , to substantiate the submission that petition would not lie against the show cause notice. Thus said, Respondents seek dismissal of writ petition. 11. Section 307 of the Act of 1956 makes a provision regarding power to require, removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws, or any scheme or any other requirement. 12. AIR 2004 SC 1467 , to substantiate the submission that petition would not lie against the show cause notice. Thus said, Respondents seek dismissal of writ petition. 11. Section 307 of the Act of 1956 makes a provision regarding power to require, removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws, or any scheme or any other requirement. 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 307 stipulates that: (2) If a building is erected or re-erected- (a) without any sanction as required by Section 293(1); or (b) when sanction has been refused; or (c) in contravention of the terms of any sanction granted; or (d) when sanction has lapsed under Section 300, the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under Section 294, shall (a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down; or (b) shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down. 13. Section 69 of the Act of 1956 makes a provision regarding function of several Municipal Authorities. And Sub-section (4) whereof provides for the Municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise the power of Commissioner. It stipulates: (4) Municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise the powers of Commissioner.- Any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner by this Act may be exercised, performed or discharged under the Commissioner's control, and subject to his superintendence and to such conditions and limitations if any as he may think fit to prescribe, by any municipal officer whom the Commissioner may generally or specially empower in writing in this behalf. 14. 14. An order dated 12.8.2008, has been brought to the notice of this Court during the course of arguments, the copy whereof has been supplied to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, whereby the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur has delegated his powers of Sections 322, 323, 302, 307(2) and 302 and 310 of the Act of 1956 in favour of Building Officer, who has been empowered to take action regarding demolition and other actions contemplated in the enumerated Section, viz., 322, 323, 302, 307(2), 302, 310. 15. Furthermore, Rule 7 of the Rules, 1984 makes a provision regarding department of building inspection stipulating therein: 7. Department of building Inspection. - (1) The authority shall have a department of building inspection which shall be in the charge of an authority, Engineer having minimum qualifications prescribed in Rule 26 for an Engineer, or Architect or Town Planner and such authority Engineer shall, for the purpose of these rules, be designated as Building Officer. The appointment of the Building Officer shall be subject to the approval of the Director, Town and Country Planning Department of the State Government or such other officer as the Director may specify for this purpose: Provided that two or more local authorities may be permitted by the Director to have a common Building Officer on terms and conditions mutually acceptable to such local authorities. (2) The authority shall appoint suitable number of Building inspectors and other technical officers having qualifications not less than those prescribed for supervisors in Rule 26 to assist the Building Officer. 16. Whereas Rule 8 lays down. Power and duties of the Building Officer in the following terms: 8. Power and duties of the building officer. - (1) The building officer shall enforce the provisions of these rules and all lawfull orders or instructions issued pursuant thereto and shall act on any question related to the mode or manner of construction, addition, alteration, repair, removal or demolition. Power and duties of the Building Officer in the following terms: 8. Power and duties of the building officer. - (1) The building officer shall enforce the provisions of these rules and all lawfull orders or instructions issued pursuant thereto and shall act on any question related to the mode or manner of construction, addition, alteration, repair, removal or demolition. (2) The Building Officer (i) shall receive all applications for permission under Rule 17 and may issue permission; (ii) shall examine the premises for which permissions have been issued and ensure compliance with these rules; (iii) may as and when necessary issue all necessary notices or orders to (a) remove illegal or unsafe construction, (b) require necessary safeguards during development or construction, (c) require adequate exit facilities in existing buildings and (d) ensure compliance with all the requirements of safety, health and general welfare of the public as contained in these rules. 17. The expression 'authority having jurisdiction' as finds mention under Rule 7 is defined under Rule 2(5) of the Rules of 1984 in following terms: (5) 'Autority having jurisdiction' (hereinafter referred to in these rules as 'authority') in relation to building activities means- (a) for permission for development The Director of Town and Country of land in planning area Planning or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf. (b) for permission of development of land in non-planning area or for construction/alteration, demolition of building in any area. (i) in any area falling within the Such Municipal Corporation or lacal limits of a municipal Municipal Council as the case may Corporation of Municipality be, or such other authority or officer and over which special Area authorized by or under the relevant Development Authority has Municipal Law to grant such jurisdiction. permission. (ii) In any area over which a Such Special Area Development Special Area Development Authority or such officer of the Authority has jurisdiction. authority as may be authorized by such authority in this behalf. (iii) In any area which any Such Development authority, or Development authority other such officer of the Development than special Area has exclusive authority as may be authorized by jurisdiction. such authority in this behalf. authority as may be authorized by such authority in this behalf. (iii) In any area which any Such Development authority, or Development authority other such officer of the Development than special Area has exclusive authority as may be authorized by jurisdiction. such authority in this behalf. Explanation: The expressions "Municipal Corporation" and "Municipal Council" whenever the context so requires, shall include the Administrator of the city referred under Section 423 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and "the person or committee of persons" appointed by the State Government under Section 328 or under Section 337 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961." 18. Combined reading of the provisions noted (supra), and the order passed by the Commissioner, negatives the contention raised by the Petitioner that the impugned notice is by an incompetent authority. 19. Moreover, as held in the case of Ramesh Kumar Singh (supra), that a petition against show cause notice is not tenable. It was observed by their Lordships: 10. We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the writ petition against a show cause notice issued by a competent statutory authority. It should be borne in mind that there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ex. P-4 notice is ex facie a 'nullity' or totally 'without jurisdiction in the traditional sense of that expression that is to say, that even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on a face of it or without any more is totally unauthorised. In such a case, for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Similar view was expressed in Ghulam Ghouse (supra), wherein their Lordship were pleased to observe: 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. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of 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 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. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petition even at the threshold by the interim protection granted. 21. The petition is thus not maintainable on both counts i.e. there is no infirmity in the issuance of notice under Section 307(2) and that a writ petition under Article 226/227 against show cause notice is not tenable. The Petitioner is, however, at liberty to continue to contest on merit and the Respondent No. 2 is directed to dwell upon the merit and afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Since, the status quo was ordered in the ease, the Respondent No. 2, shall be well to issue notice of hearing by fixing a date. 22. The Petitioner is, however, at liberty to continue to contest on merit and the Respondent No. 2 is directed to dwell upon the merit and afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Since, the status quo was ordered in the ease, the Respondent No. 2, shall be well to issue notice of hearing by fixing a date. 22. It is made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of present case, therefore, neither the Respondent No. 2 nor the Court wherein the MJC No. 21/2008 is being prosecuted, be influenced by any observation made hereabove and shall decide respective matters on its own merit. 23. With these observations the petition is finally disposed of. No costs.