JUDGMENT A. S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 11/01/2023 issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai principally on the ground that the said show-cause notice has been issued in a premeditated manner as it conveys the decision already taken by the respondent No.2-Deputy Municipal Commissioner without leaving anything for the petitioner No.1-Company to show cause. 2. The facts that are not in dispute are that initially on 24/06/1981 the Municipal Corporation granted no-objection to the display of two hoardings to M/s We Two Advertisers. The Company claims to have purchased the rights in that regard and on payment of monthly license fee to the Municipal Corporation, it has been operating the said hoardings since then. By virtue of having paid the hoarding fees till 31/03/2023, the company is entitled to have the said hoardings in place at least till that date. On 11/01/2023, the respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice to the Company in which it was stated that on 14/11/2022 a letter was received from the Maharashtra Rail Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.-MRIDCL requesting the Municipal Corporation to remove the hoardings since their existence was infringing the proposed Railway Over Bridge (ROB) alignment and the work of MRIDCL was being hampered. It was further stated that since the project was in larger public interest, the renewal application for advertisement permit of the Company would have to be revoked and obstruction of the said structure would have to be removed immediately. It was further stated that without prejudice to the same, the Company would be directed to remove the hoardings within thirty days. On failure to do so, the Company was required to show sufficient cause as to why the hoarding permit should not be revoked/cancelled. The Company on 30/01/2023 replied to the aforesaid notice stating therein that it had already entered into contract with its clients for a period of three years for which yearly advance had been taken. It was further stated that there was no fair opportunity given to the Company to submit its objection to the notice in question. It was stated that the show-cause notice be therefore withdrawn. It was further stated that there was no fair opportunity given to the Company to submit its objection to the notice in question. It was stated that the show-cause notice be therefore withdrawn. It is in this backdrop that the Company has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the said show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023. 3. Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on a bare perusal of the show-cause notice it was evident that the Municipal Corporation had merely made a show of issuing such show-cause notice since it had already decided to revoke the hoarding permit by stating so in the show-cause notice itself. By indicating the course of action that was decided to be taken, it was clear that the impugned show cause notice was merely to show that an opportunity was granted notwithstanding the fact that an adverse decision had already been taken by the Municipal Corporation. What remained to be given was merely a post-decisional hearing to the petitioners. Though titled as a show-cause notice, the impugned notice was in fact an order rejecting the hoarding permit. Placing reliance on the decision in H. L. Trehan and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. (1989) 1 SCC 764 , it was submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by the Municipal Corporation of now granting an opportunity of hearing to the Company having decided to revoke the hoarding permit. The hearing if granted, would only be with a view to indicate compliance with the principles of natural justice. It was then submitted that the Municipal Corporation failed to indicate any urgency whatsoever as a reason for failure to grant an opportunity of hearing. While pre-decisional hearing could be dispensed with if any immediate action was necessary, the material on record did not indicate that any such immediate action was warranted. The communication dated 14/11/2022 referred to in the show-cause notice was also not supplied to the petitioners. No case therefore was made out by the Municipal Corporation to dispense with grant of such pre-decisional hearing. In that regard reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition (L) No.1102/2013 (S.R. Sale and Co. vs. Union of India and ors.) dated 09/05/2013. No case therefore was made out by the Municipal Corporation to dispense with grant of such pre-decisional hearing. In that regard reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition (L) No.1102/2013 (S.R. Sale and Co. vs. Union of India and ors.) dated 09/05/2013. It was thus submitted that the show-cause notice was liable to be set aside and the Company was entitled to operate the hoarding permit till the date the license fees have been paid which was 31/03/2023. 4. Ms Vaishali Mahadik, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation opposed aforesaid submissions. At the outset she submitted that the respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice to the Company and the Company having replied to the same, there was no reason whatsoever for this Court to entertain the writ petition in which challenge was raised only to the show-cause notice. A final decision on the said show-cause notice was yet to be taken and without waiting for such final decision, a challenge was raised to the said notice. In case any adverse orders were passed by the Municipal Corporation, the remedy of appeal was available to the Company. Without prejudice to the aforesaid it was submitted that in view of the communication dated 14/11/2022 issued by MRIDCL, the Municipal Corporation had proceeded to issue the show-cause notice to the Company. It was proposed to revoke the hoarding permit since the same was causing obstruction in the construction of the ROB. Time of thirty days was given to the Company to remove the said hoardings and the show-cause notice ought to be viewed in that context. It could not be said that even prior to issuance of a show-cause notice, the Municipal Corporation had taken a decision to revoke hoarding permit. In any case the Municipal Corporation was entitled to rely upon the terms and conditions on which the hoarding permit was issued and one such condition was revocation of the hoarding permit without assigning any reason and without any previous notice. It was thus submitted that there was no case made out to invoke writ jurisdiction especially since what was under challenge was merely a show-cause notice. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the documents placed on record. It was thus submitted that there was no case made out to invoke writ jurisdiction especially since what was under challenge was merely a show-cause notice. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the documents placed on record. It is true that challenge has been raised in the writ petition to the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be slow in entertaining a challenge raised to a show-cause notice as it is always open for the noticee to respond to such show-cause notice and put forth its case before the Authority that has issued such show-cause notice. In other words, unless any adverse decision is taken by the Authority issuing the show-cause notice, a challenge to a show cause notice would be premature. However, a limited scope that is available for the Court to entertain such challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is if the challenge is raised to a show cause notice on the ground that while issuing the same, the said Authority has already made up its mind as regards the decision to be taken and the show-cause notice has been issued merely to indicate an attempt being made to comply with principles of natural justice. In this regard we are guided by the observations in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision in Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (2006) 12 SCC 33 which read as under : " 9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questions a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1087) 2 SCC 179, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K. I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431 ). when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K. I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431 ). It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice. 10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V. C. Banaras Hindu University vs. Shrikant (2006) 11 SCC 42 stating in paragraphs 48 and 49 as under : 48. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case. 49. In K. I. Shephard vs Union of India this Court held in paragraph 16 as under : It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose. (See also Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 331 and Rajesh Kumar v. D.C.I.T. (2007) 2 SCC 181 ." 6. On perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs it becomes clear that if from the show-cause notice it is evident that the Authority issuing the same has already indicated its mind and has formed an opinion of the action proposed to be taken, there would hardly be any scope for the noticee to offer an explanation. Grant of any opportunity of hearing thereafter could be shown to be an empty formality. It is in the aforesaid legal premise that a challenge to a show-cause notice could be entertained. It would therefore be necessary to consider whether the impugned show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023 falls foul of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision. 7. Grant of any opportunity of hearing thereafter could be shown to be an empty formality. It is in the aforesaid legal premise that a challenge to a show-cause notice could be entertained. It would therefore be necessary to consider whether the impugned show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023 falls foul of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision. 7. Since it is urged that the Municipal Corporation in the show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023 had already taken a decision to revoke the renewal application as well as for removal of the structure in question, it would be necessary to refer to the show-cause notice that reads as under : " M/s Sine Fine Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Initially was granted 2 advertisement Hoardings 20' X 20' situated on the Ground/Top of Mhasoba Temple, B.J. Road, Byculla (W), Mumbai 400008 at the aforesaid location vide Permit No.76111190 and 761111569. MRIDC vide it's letter No.MRIDC/PROJ/FO/MCGM/2021-212/1844 dt.14/11/2022 has requested this office to remove the subject hoardings as existence of this advertisement hoarding near to LP6 foundation location adjacent to Mhasoba temple is infringing with the proposed ROB alignment and the work of MRIDC will be hampered due to existence of said hoardings. It is pertinent to mention here that M/s Sine Fine Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Granted permission of subject hoardings from size 20' X 20' (Back to Back) subject to following condition which has been issued with permit copy:- 'That the Municipal Commissioner in his discretion may at anytime without previous notice revoke or withdraw this permission without assigning any reason and that the revocation and withdrawal of this permission for any reason shall not prejudice or affect any claim or demand whatsoever of the Municipal Commissioner hereunder or otherwise not shall the permit holder in the event of revocation and withdrawal of his permission be entitle to any payment whatsoever made hereunder." As the project is in large public interest your renewal application of Advertisement Permit No.76111590 and 76111569 (Back to Back) of M/s Sine Fine Advertising Pvt. Ltd. should have to be revoked and the obstruction of this structure should have to be removed immediately. Without prejudice in view of above you are directed to remove the subject hoarding within 30 days. Without prejudice in view of above you are directed to remove the subject hoarding within 30 days. If you fail to remove the same you have to show sufficient cause as why the hoardings bearing permit No.761111590 & 761111569 of size 20' X 20' (Back to Back) situated on the Ground/Top of Mhasoba Temple, B. J. Road, Byculla (W), Mumbai-400008 should not be revoked/cancelled if you fail to remove the structure within period of 30 days as mentioned herein above the permit issued under no.761111590 and 761111569 shall stand revoked and cancelled and the hoardings along with complete structure shall be removed by BMC entirely at your risk, cost and consequences, which please note. (emphasis supplied) On a plain reading of the show-cause notice it can be seen that the Deputy Municipal Commissioner has referred to the communication dated 14/11/2022 issued by MRIDCL which contain a request to remove the subject hoardings since they were infringing the proposed ROB alignment and thus hamper the work of MRIDCL. It then referred to a condition in the communication by which permission was granted to operate the hoardings to the effect that permission could be withdrawn without assigning any reason and at any time. However, thereafter it has been stated that the petitioners' renewal application would have to be revoked and obstruction of the hoardings would have to be removed immediately. It is further stated that without prejudice to the aforesaid, the petitioners were to remove the hoardings within thirty days and on failure to remove the same, the petitioners were required to show sufficient cause why the permit should not be revoked/cancelled. 8. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation tendered the relevant file leading to the issuing of the show-cause notice. On perusal of the said file, it can be seen that the Company had been issued hoarding renewal receipt that is valid up to 31/03/2023. The License Department has renewed the license till 31/03/2023. On 14/11/2022 the MRIDCL has informed the Municipal Corporation that the construction work of the proposed ROB was in progress and that the existence of the hoardings in question was infringing the proposed bridge alignment. The Municipal Corporation was informed of the aforesaid and necessary action for removal of the hoarding was expected. On 14/11/2022 the MRIDCL has informed the Municipal Corporation that the construction work of the proposed ROB was in progress and that the existence of the hoardings in question was infringing the proposed bridge alignment. The Municipal Corporation was informed of the aforesaid and necessary action for removal of the hoarding was expected. After issuance of the impugned show-cause notice, the Municipal Corporation has received another communication dated 09/02/2023 from MRIDCL in which it has been stated that the work of foundation and substructure of the proposed ROB would start from 01/03/2023 and it would be completed by 31/05/2023. After completion of substructure work, the work of superstructure would be started from 01/06/2023. It is then stated that since the hoardings were infringing with the superstructure of the proposed ROB, the same be removed before 31/05/2023 for smooth progress of the work. The communication dated 09/02/2023 thus makes it clear that MRIDCL required removal of the hoardings before 31/05/2023 since the work of the superstructure was to be started from 01/06/2023 and that the hoardings were infringing the superstructure of the proposed ROB. 9. In S.R. Sale and Co. (supra) it has been held by the Division Bench that one of the reasons for dispensing with grant of an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing is when immediate action is required to be taken and grant of hearing would defeat the requirement of public interest in the matter. However where immediate action is not required, a prohibitory order can await compliance with the requirements of natural justice. Ordinarily, a pre-decisional hearing must be the rule while its dispensation ought to be an exception. Examining the matter in this context, it can be immediately gathered that even according to the MRIDCL it requires the removal of the hoardings in question by 31/05/2023 since the work of the superstructure that was being infringed by the hoardings was to start from 01/06/2023. In other words, there was no need of any immediate action of removal of the subject hoardings so as to dispense with pre-decisional hearing in the matter. It is to be noted that despite the initial communication dated 14/11/2022 issued by MRIDCL in the matter, the Municipal Corporation waited till 11/01/2023 which is a period of almost two months when the show-cause notice was issued and the decision to revoke the permit as well as removal of the hoardings was indicated therein. It is to be noted that despite the initial communication dated 14/11/2022 issued by MRIDCL in the matter, the Municipal Corporation waited till 11/01/2023 which is a period of almost two months when the show-cause notice was issued and the decision to revoke the permit as well as removal of the hoardings was indicated therein. The latter communication dated 09/02/2023 clarified that the work of the superstructure was to start from 01/06/2023 and hence removal of the hoardings was sought by 31/05/2023. In these facts we are satisfied that the Municipal Corporation ought to have firstly issued a show-cause notice merely calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the renewal application of its permit for the year 2023-2024 ought not be refused instead of indicating revocation of the permit and directing removal of the hoardings in the show-cause notice itself. Since the show-cause notice has been issued in the light of the communication dated 14/11/2022 and MRIDCL itself as clarified on 09/02/2023 that the obstruction ought to be removed by 31/05/2023, there is hardly any justification on the part of the Municipal Corporation in issuing the premeditated show-cause notice. 10. For aforesaid reasons we are satisfied that a case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. In that view of the matter, the following order would serve the ends of justice : (a) The following words 'your renewal application of Advertisement Permit No.76111590 and 76111569 (Back to Back) of M/s Sine Fine Advertising Pvt. Ltd. should have to be revoked and the obstruction of this structure should have to be removed immediately. Without prejudice in view of above you are directed to remove the subject hoarding within 30 days. If you fail to remove the same ' and ' if you fail to remove the structure within period of 30 days as mentioned herein above the permit issued under no.761111590 and 761111569 shall stand revoked and cancelled and the hoardings along with complete structure shall be removed by BMC entirely at your risk, cost and consequences, which please note ' in the show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023 shall stand removed. The show-cause notice shall operate after deletion of the aforesaid lines. The show-cause notice shall operate after deletion of the aforesaid lines. (b) The Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) shall consider the petitioners' reply to the show cause notice dated 30/01/2023 and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the Company take a decision on the show-cause notice within a period of ten days thereafter. (c) To enable consideration or the petitioners' reply and with a view to grant an opportunity of hearing, the authorised representative of the petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) on 28/02/2023. (d) The decision taken be communicated to the petitioners. Until such decision is taken by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, the action proposed in the show-cause notice dated 11/01/2023 shall not be taken. (e) It is clarified that the observations made in the judgment are only for considering the legality of the challenge to the show-cause notice and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) is free to take the decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.