JDUGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (oral) The petitioner has questioned the show cause notice dated 29th November, 2013, Annexure P-6, made by respondent No.2. The respondents have not filed the reply till today. 2. We have gone through the writ petition and the impugned show cause notice. It is apt to reproduce the last para of the impugned show cause notice hereunder:- “NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby called upon to show cause on 31-12-2013 at 2-00 P.M. by appearing personally or through your authorized representatives as to why the aforesaid land together with built up structure, if any, should not be vested free from all encumbrance in the State of Himachal Pradesh (except 400 Sq. yards as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney dated 31-1- 1996 executed by Maharani Kam Sundari in favour of Major Jagjit Singh and land and 0-1 bishwas land comprised in old Khasra No.19/1), failing which further action shall be taken in accordance with law.” 3.While going through the show cause notice, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the respondents have not taken any decision and simply asked the writ petitioner to explain. However, the petitioner has chosen not to appear before the respondents and neither filed any objections nor made any representation, but has filed the writ petition. 4.The writ petition on the face of it is premature because the respondents have to hear the petitioner and to make the decision thereafter. Our this view is fortified by the Apex Court Judgment in the case Union of India & Anr. V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 607, wherein the Apex Court 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 vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995(8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467 , Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639 , State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 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. 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 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.” 5.Our this view is also fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 416. 6.Having said so, the writ petition is dismissed as premature.