IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.23066 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. ANIL KUMAR. M. N.
SON OF LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 71/49, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027.
(BY MR. NARAYANA V S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER … PETITIONER KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN, NO.107, 1ST FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVANA, K.H.B. BUILDING, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. M.N. PRABHAKAR S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 71/49, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027.
4. M.N. SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.112, 10TH MAIN, 6TH SECTOR, BEHIND BDA COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.
5. M.N. SHASHIBHUSAN S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.737/74, 1ST MAIN, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037.
6. SMT. PREMA W/O LATE M. N. NAGABHUSANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALARULU, NEAR VEERA BHADRA SWAMI TEMPLE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK -560 080.
7. SMT. BHAGYA RANI D/O LATE M. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 10, C.M.R. COLONY, GOPAL NILAYA, 4TH CROSS, LINGARAJA PURA, BENGALURU-560 085.
8. M.N. USHA RANI D/O LATE M.L. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28/67, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.
9. M.N. MAMATHA REDDY D/O LATE M.L. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 500/C, 17TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.
10. M.N. SUDHA RANI W/O RAMALINGA REDDY, R/AT NO.REGHAN SAI RESIDENCY, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK, ABBAYA REDDY LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.
11. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O LATE M.L. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, REP. BY M.N. SOMASHEKAR, R/AT NO.112, 10TH MAIN, 6TH SECTOR, BEHIND BDA COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1, … RESPONDENTS SRI. P N NANJA REDDY, ADV. FOR R4, 5, 7, 9 & 11, SRI. N BHARAT, ADV. FOR R10, SRI. K C SHANTA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3, SRI. K MURTHY, ADV, FOR R6 R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED R8 – SERVED THROUGH HAND SUMMONS & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN THE MATTER DTD: 17.5.2019 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN, ORDER DTD: 17.5.2019 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE R-2; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Narayana V.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5, 7, 9 & 11.
Mr.N.Bharat, learned counsel for respondent No.10.
Mr.K.C.Shanta Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Mr.K.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Commission for Women.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No.11 invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) had filed a petition under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 08.03.2019 directed that the respondent Nos.1 to 8 therein shall take care the maintenance of respondent No.11 and shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- p.m. to the petitioner.
4. It is the case of respondent No.11 that since, the aforesaid order was not complied with, she approached before State Commission for Women. Thereupon the Commission has passed the order dated 17.05.2019, by which the Commission has directed the petitioner as well as the other respondents to provide one house of the respondent No.11 in the premises in question. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Karnataka State Commission for Women had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.11 submitted that respondent No.11 is aged about 89 years and since, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was not given effect to. Therefore, she was constrained to approach the Karnataka State Commission for Women and the order has been passed with the consent of the parties. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that parties by consent cannot be conferred jurisdiction on an authority. [SEE: ‘JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGAT AND OTHERS VS. DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES HARYANA AND OTHERS’, (2013) 10 SCC 136].
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 unable to point out any statutory provision in which Karnataka State Commission for Women could pass such an order. The impugned order therefore, per se without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly, quashed. Needless to state that the respondent No.11 shall be at liberty to get the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner executed and implemented under the Act.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS