ORDER: I.A. Nos. 8979 of 2013 & 3050 of 2014 These interlocutory applications have been filed for seeking amendment in the writ petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, I.A. Nos. 8979 of 2013 and 3050 of 2014 are allowed. W.P. (C) No. 7393 of 2013 Challenging orders dated 18.10.2013, 13.11.2013 and 03.12.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner namely, Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainment Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act and it is engaged in hospitality and the entertainment business. The Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainment Ltd. has 22 hotels in different States across the country. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the orders passed by the respondents are without jurisdiction. The petitioner-company has been carrying on business as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India and therefore, the respondents could not have sought the details, as mentioned in letter dated 18.10.2013 and the respondents could not have sealed the premises of the petitioner company. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the petitioner-company was carrying on business not in terms of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and Securities and Exchange Board of India and therefore, the petitioner-company was directed vide letter dated 18.10.2013 to produce the documents. After a surprise inspection, when it was found that the petitioner-company has not been carrying on business following the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and Securities and Exchange Board of India, its premises was sealed. 6. I have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Vide letter dated 18.10.2013, the petitioner-company has been directed to produce documents such as, the audited account of the company for the last three years, the list of the customers, the subscription collected by the company in each month etc. It is well settled that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show-cause notice unless, the show-cause notice has been issued contrary to statutory provisions or it is wholly without jurisdiction. 8. It is well settled that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show-cause notice unless, the show-cause notice has been issued contrary to statutory provisions or it is wholly without jurisdiction. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , has held as under: 13. “It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Dutt Sharma, etc. 14. 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 petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. 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. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. 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. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 9. The District Administration has, no doubt, authority to supervise the business conducted in the district concern. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 9. The District Administration has, no doubt, authority to supervise the business conducted in the district concern. Moreover, I find that under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of First Class has power to search a place. The order impugned has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who exercises the power of a Magistrate of First Class. The petitioner himself has averred that the Securities and Exchange Board of India vide order dated 11.07.2013 has passed the following direction against the petitioner company: (a) not to collect money from the investors including the existing schemes; (b) not to launch any scheme; (c) not to dispose of any properties or alienate any assets of the scheme; (d) not to divert any funds raised from the public at large which are kept in bank account(s) and/ or in custody of the company. 10. Insofar as, challenge to order dated 13.11.2013 is concerned, I find that by the said order, it was directed that the premises of the petitioner would be de-sealed for inspection by the local team. I do not find any reason for interfering with order dated 13.11.2013. 11. This writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.