ORDER : K. Ravichandrababu, J. 1. W.P. (MD) No. 10031 of 2015 is filed seeking for a Mandamus, directing the second respondent to implement the order passed by the first respondent dated 11.04.2015, within a stipulated time. W.P. (MD) No. 17768 of 2015 is filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the first respondent dated 04.09.2015. 2. Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same. 3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is common arising between the same parties, both these Writ Petitions are taken up together for final disposal to pass a common order. 4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- (i) He is doing the Cable TV business for the past 15 years, with operator licence as Local Cable TV Operator, issued by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai. The Managing Director appointed the petitioner and one Chandra Mohan as Taluk Cable TV Operators, within Sivagangai District, through proceedings dated 01.04.2013. Though the said Chandra Mohan was granted the licence along with the petitioner, he did not operate the same and right from the date of handing over the control room, the petitioner paid all the charges viz., rent, electricity bills and other expenses in his individual capacity. The concept of the Taluk Cable TV Operator is to supervise the LCOs, which is coming under his jurisdiction and to collect subscription amount and to credit the same into the account of the first respondent. (ii) To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, it was found that the said Chandra Mohan fabricated a letter as though the petitioner had given consent for collecting the amount by Chandra Mohan himself and received the incentive amount. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the respondents and the Police against the said Chandra Mohan. Based upon such complaint, the District Collector, Sivagangai and the Deputy Manager/Special Thasildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Sivagangai, through proceedings dated 11.04.2015 and 17.04.2015, found that the said Chandra Mohan has forged and obtained incentive amounts and recommended to the first respondent to pay the incentives, maintenance, electricity Bills etc., to the petitioner and to delete the name of the said Chandra Mohan as TCO and to take action against him. When the said order passed by the District Collector, Sivagangai, is yet to be implemented, the first respondent issued the show cause notice impugned in W.P. (MD) No. 17768 of 2015, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within fifteen days as to why the licence issued to the petitioner and the said Chandra Mohan shall not be cancelled, as they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,49,312/- to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited. Therefore, the above Writ Petitions are filed with the relief as stated supra. 5. Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions has submitted that when already the District Collector, Sivagangai has found that the petitioner is not liable and only the said Chandra Mohan has committed mischief and action should be taken against the said Chandra Mohan and also issued a direction to change the licence in the name of the petitioner, through his proceedings dated 11.04.2015, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, is not justified in issuing the show cause notice hurriedly by to the petitioner and, therefore, this Court has to interfere with the same. He further submitted that a perusal of the show cause notice and the averments made therein would show that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited has already pre-determined the issue, as if the petitioner along with said Chandra Mohan are jointly liable to pay the amount referred to in the show cause notice. Thus he submitted that no useful purpose would be served, if the petitioner is directed to give an explanation to the said show cause notice. In support of such contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (1) CTC 844 (Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others). 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that insofar as the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10031 of 2015 is concerned, the proceedings of the District Collector passed on 11.04.2015 will be considered by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai on merits. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that insofar as the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10031 of 2015 is concerned, the proceedings of the District Collector passed on 11.04.2015 will be considered by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai on merits. However, he further submitted that the petitioner, in the meantime, is not entitled to challenge the show cause notice issued by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, since the same has been issued by the authority having jurisdiction to issue the same. He further submitted that as it is only a show cause notice, the petitioner can very well give his explanation and as and when such explanation is given, the same will be considered on merits also by taking note of the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015. 7. Heard Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. Insofar as the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10031 of 2015 is concerned, as it is fairly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai, will consider the proceedings issued by the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015 on merits, the above Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai, to consider the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015 and pass orders accordingly on merits. 9. Insofar as the other Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 17768 of 2015, challenging the show cause notice is concerned, it is well settled that no Writ would lie against a show cause notice, if the same is issued by the competent authority having jurisdiction to issue the same or if the same, on the face of it, is not illegal. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of the show cause notice, submitted that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai has already pre-determined the issue against the petitioner holding him liable along with the said Chandra Mohan in respect of the amount referred to therein and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by giving an explanation before the very same authority. In respect of the said contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 (1) CTC 844 (Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others). 10. It is true that the Apex Court, in the above said decision, has observed that a Writ Petition is maintainable against the show cause notice, when the notice is issued with pre-determination. However, perusal of the facts in that case before the Honourable Supreme Court would show that a demand was made through a proceedings styled as a show cause notice. On the other hand, perusal of the present case, more particularly, the contention of the impugned notice would show that the petitioner is called upon to give explanation as to why the license issued cannot be cancelled on the reason that the petitioner and other persons have collected only Rs. 15,87,895/- as against the out standing of Rs. 2,64,91,107/-. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner can very well give explanation in respect of such allegation made in the show cause notice. Thus, I find that the facts and circumstances of the case before the Honourable Supreme Court are totally different and consequently, the said decision is distinguishable one. Even otherwise, the facts and circumstances of the present case would show that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai, who issued the show cause notice, has not referred to the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015 and considered the same before issuing the show cause notice. In fact, in the reference column referred to in the show cause notice, the proceedings of the District Collector dated 11.04.2015 has not at all been cited even though such proceedings was passed five months before. In fact, in the reference column referred to in the show cause notice, the proceedings of the District Collector dated 11.04.2015 has not at all been cited even though such proceedings was passed five months before. Therefore, it is evident that the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai was not placed with the above said proceedings of the District Collector before issuing the show cause notice. Therefore it cannot be said that the averments made in the show cause notice would have to be construed as a final determination or decision of the said authority even before hearing the petitioner and considering his explanation. Needless to say that any adverse reference or inference made in a show cause notice has to be construed only as an allegation and cannot be taken to mean as a final conclusion or determination of the authority, especially, when the petitioner in this case is yet to be heard. Thus the petitioner is entitled to place all materials including the order passed by the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015 before the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai by way of his explanation. 11. In any event, as this Court is only directing the petitioner to give his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, without expressing any view on the merits and contention of the parties, no prejudice would be caused to either parties, if the petitioner gives an explanation before the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai. Needless to say that on receipt of such explanation, the said authority will consider the same and pass orders on merits, uninfluenced by any of the observation or allegation made in the show cause notice. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10031 of 2015 is disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai, to consider the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law simultaneously while passing the order in the other matter, which in the subject matter in W.P. (MD) No. 17768 of 2015. Accordingly, the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 17768 of 2015 is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to give explanation to show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai will consider the same, also by taking note of the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 11.04.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Petition disposed of.