IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28992 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
(By Mr. VIVEKANANDA T.P. ADV.) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR … PETITIONER SCHEDULE CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES NO. 14/3, II FLOOR, CFC BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. V.B. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O V. BASAVAIAH R/AT NO.38/29, CHIMANI HILLS N.M.H.LAYOUT, I STAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 090.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1 Mr. KRISHNA RAO M, ADV., FOR R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the proceedings in case at Annex-K pending before R-1. Declare that R-1 has no power or jurisdiction to entertain or investigate into the complaint/representation dated 8.6.2013 at Annex-F submitted by R-2 and initiate proceedings in case at Annex-K and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Vivekananda T.P., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Sri.Krishna Rao M., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
i) issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings in Case No.Itare 65/2015 at Annexure-K pending before the 1st respondent.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction declaring that the first respondent has no power or jurisdiction to entertain or investigate into the complaint/representation dated 8.6.2013 at Annexure-F submitted by the 2nd respondent and initiate proceedings in Case No.Itare 65/2015 at Annexure-K iii) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent deemed fit in the circumstances of the case including payment of cost in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the proceeding instituted by respondent No.2 shall be withdrawn as the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has no authority to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent No.2. The aforesaid submission is taken on record.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV