ORDER : D. N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21st September, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2011. The said writ petition was preferred by the respondent (original petitioner), challenging the order of suspension of coal linkage, which is dated 9th May, 2011 (Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent (original petitioner) had also challenged the show cause notice, issued by the petitioner dated 1st June, 2011 (Annexure 8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is an allegation by this respondent (original petitioner) that it is misusing the grant of coal, issued by this appellant. A Coal Linkage Agreement was entered into between the parties on 16th March, 2010. As per the said agreement, the coal is supplied by this appellant to the respondent (original petitioner) at a much concessional rate than the market value, which is much higher. The coal is supplied for usage of the same in manufacturing process, carried out by the respondent (original petitioner) and not for black-marketing. 3. It appears that this respondent (original petitioner) misused the coal, supplied by this appellant, including black-marketing. It appears that there were several complaints against the respondent (original petitioner) regarding misuse of coal and hence, notice was given to the respondent (original petitioner) on 1st June, 2011 as to why the Coal Linkage Agreement should not be terminated. It further appears that the Central Bureau of Investigation has also lodged First Information Report against the respondent (original petitioner) on 19th April, 2011. The said notice dated 1st June, 2011, which is Annexure 8 to this memo of Letters Patent Appeal, was challenged in the writ petition, preferred by the respondent (original petitioner). At length, in the show cause notice the reasons have been mentioned as to how the respondent (original petitioner) was misusing the coal, given to it on a concessional rate by this appellant. Neither the respondent (original petitioner) has maintained the Stock Register of coal nor has it maintained the production register, after a particular date, as stated in the show cause notice. 4. Neither the respondent (original petitioner) has maintained the Stock Register of coal nor has it maintained the production register, after a particular date, as stated in the show cause notice. 4. As the First Information Report, which is at Annexure 6 to this memo of Letters Patent Appeal, was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondent (original petitioner), the Coal Linkage Agreement was suspended and for that a letter was issued on 9th May, 2011, which is at Annexure 7 to this memo of Letters Patent Appeal. This letter dated 9th May, 2011 was also challenged in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2011, preferred by the respondent (original petitioner). 5. Looking to the reasons, stated in the show cause notice dated 1st June, 2011 and the First Information Report, it appears that there are serious allegations against the respondent (original petitioner) regarding misuse of coal, which is supplied to the respondent (original petitioner) by the appellant, at a much concessional rate. As the criminal prosecution is pending, we are not observing certain aspect of the matter, but, suffice it to say that the appellant has all power, jurisdiction and authority to suspend the supply of coal vide its letter dated 9th May, 2011, in view of the First Information Report, lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondent (original petitioner). 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Chemicals Private Limited & anr. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & ors., as reported in (2010) 10 SCC 388 , especially at paragraph no.19, has held as under: “19. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Chemicals Private Limited & anr. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & ors., as reported in (2010) 10 SCC 388 , especially at paragraph no.19, has held as under: “19. Coal India Ltd. and BCCL are government companies of the Government of India and are bound by the policy decisions of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, and since under the new coal distribution policy formulated pursuant to the observations of this Court in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India misutilisation of allotted coal and black-marketing of such coal by the appellants was to be checked, Coal India Ltd. and BCCL did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably to suspend the supplies of coal under FSA to the appellants, if they entertained a serious doubt on the basis of the FIR lodged by CBI that the supplies of coal, if made, to the appellants may be misutilised by the appellants and may be sold in the open market.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, no error has been committed by the appellant in suspending the supply of coal to the respondent (original petitioner). The appellant cannot wait till the outcome of the criminal proceeding. Till the outcome in the criminal proceeding, supply of coal cannot be permitted to be misused by the respondent (original petitioner) thoroughly well. Prevention is better than cure. Coal is such a commodity, which can be utilized by even other industries for manufacturing process, instead of black-marketing the same, at the hands of the respondent (original petitioner). This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2011. However, operation, implementation and execution of the impugned judgment, delivered by learned Single Judge, has already been stayed by this Court vide order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal dated 18th January, 2012. 8. It further appears from the facts of the case that the show cause notice dated 1st June, 2011 (Annexure 8 to this memo of appeal), issued by the appellant, is also under challenge. 8. It further appears from the facts of the case that the show cause notice dated 1st June, 2011 (Annexure 8 to this memo of appeal), issued by the appellant, is also under challenge. However, we see no justification to interfere with the issuance of the said show cause notice while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because issuance of show cause notice is mainly for the reason that final conclusion should be arrived at correctly. In fact, whenever such type of show cause notice is issued, normally the Courts should not interfere with the same, unless there is excess of jurisdiction or want of jurisdiction or there is violation of the principles of natural justice. None of these grounds is available for interference by this Court, so far as the present case is concerned. The appellant has all power, jurisdiction and authority to ask the respondent about the usage of coal. Looking to the show cause notice, it appears that the appellant has given fifteen point questionnaire and the respondent instead of giving reply to the said questionnaire has rushed to the High Court. Such type of challenge to the show cause notice is known as “premature challenge”, which cannot be entertained by this Court. Such type of petitioners are known as “chance taking petitioners”. Such petitioners are not giving the reply to the authority, but, are in a habit to knock the door of the High Court. Some are successful and some are unsuccessful. Normally the show cause notice should be allowed to be adjudicated upon by the authority, which has issued the show cause notice, unless, as stated herein above, there is thoroughly a want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the authority of this appellant in issuing the show cause notice, since no illegality has been committed by this appellant in issuing the show cause notice dated 1st June, 2011 (Annexure 8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 10. It appears that initially a petition was preferred by the respondent (original petitioner), challenging only the show cause notice. 10. It appears that initially a petition was preferred by the respondent (original petitioner), challenging only the show cause notice. It further appears from the facts of the case that the respondent has preferred Cr.M.P. No. 765 of 2011, praying therein, for grant of stay against the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein, an order has been passed by this Court dated 30th June, 2011, which reads as under: “This petition is admitted for hearing. Let this petition be put up on 20th of July, 2011 along with Cr.M.P. No.763/11, Cr.M.P. No.764/11, Cr.M.P. No.689/10, Cr.M.P. No.695/10 and Cr.M.P. No.712/10. Till next date, there shall be stay of further proceedings against the petitioners” 11. Thus, it appears that First Information Report has been lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondent (original petitioner); show cause notice for suspension of supply of coal has also been issued by this appellant and by now, final order has also been passed by the appellant, after adjudicating the show cause notice. The said order of termination of supply of coal, passed by the appellant, is dated 27th December, 2011, which has not been challenged by the respondent. Thus, if the final order has not been challenged and is accepted since long, by the respondent (original petitioner), we see no reason, but, to quash and set aside the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21st September, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2011, because the initial suspension of supply of coal, show cause notice, issued by the appellant, and the final order, passed by the appellant, are absolutely in consonance with the facts of the present case and the respondent has accepted the said termination order dated 27th December, 2011, more particularly in the light of the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Chemicals Private Limited & anr. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & ors. (supra). 12. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21st September, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside.