Bombay High Court

MUKESH DEVNARAYAN TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The impugned order is set aside as a non‑speaking order that failed to consider the petitioner’s contentions and was based on a vague show‑cause notice.

Summary

Mukesh Devnarayan Tiwari filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 5 March 2026 passed by the respondents after a show‑cause notice. The petitioner argued that the order failed to address any of his contentions and that the show‑cause notice was vague. The High Court examined the order and found it to be a non‑speaking, unreasoned order that did not consider the petitioner’s submissions. It also held that the show‑cause notice was cryptic and did not meet the requirements of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, directed the respondents to issue a fresh, proper show‑cause notice, and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the impugned order qualifies as a reasoned order under principles of natural justice.
Whether the show‑cause notice issued to the petitioner was sufficiently specific and clear.
Whether the order should be set aside for failing to consider the petitioner’s contentions.

Subjects

natural justice
show cause notice
reasoned order
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

                                                                               58-wp 7333-26.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 7333 OF 2026
Date: 2026.09.08
16:20:18 +0530

                      Mukesh Devnarayan Tiwari                                … Petitioner
                              Versus
                      Union of India & Ors.                                   ... Respondents

                                          __________________________

                      Mr. Roshil Nichani a/w. Mr. Aansh Desai i/b Pythagoras Legal for the
                      Petitioner.

                      Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w. Ms. Megha Bajoria and Ms. Khushi P.
                      Agarwal for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
                                        __________________________

                                                   CORAM       : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                                 SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                                   DATED       : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                      P.C. :

                      1.          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

                      2.          Our attention is invited to the impugned Order dated 5 th

                      March, 2026. We have perused the show cause notice dated 22 nd

                      January, 2026. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 30 th

                      January, 2026 to the show cause notice. However, the impugned

                      order dated 5th March, 2026 does not refer to any of the contentions

                      raised by the petitioner. Except for observing the relevant provisions



                       Amk                                                              1/2
                                                          58-wp 7333-26.doc

have been violated, there is no consideration of any of the

contentions of the petitioner.

3.           Learned counsel for the respondents tried to point out

that the impugned order is a reasoned order and has been passed

after taking into consideration all the materials.

4.           On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the order

is non speaking order and does not refer any of the contentions

raised by the petitioner. The impugned order is therefore set aside.

5.           Further, we find that the show cause notice itself is very

cryptic and as vague as it can be. In such view of the matter, it

would be advisable if a proper show cause notice is issued to the

petitioner so as to enable him to meet the allegations made in the

show cause notice.

6.           Liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause

notice in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open.

7.           The petition is disposed of.




     (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                          (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Amk                                                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…