IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.2161 OF 2017(S – KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMITRA DAUGHTER OF SRI K.M.KARUMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORRATION, RESIDING AT NO.67, LALBAGH, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMITRA, PARTY – IN - PERSON) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2. KARNATAKA STATE WOMEN COMMISSION, NO.107, CAUVERY BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.48227/2012 DATED 10/11/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2016, passed in writ petition No.48227 of 2012, by the learned Single Judge, in quashing the impugned order at Annexure ‘A’ to the said writ petition, the respondent No.1 therein has filed this appeal.
2. We have heard the appellant, party-in-person.
3. She contends that grave injustice has caused to her by the respondents herein and they have acted in a manner beyond law. That there are material to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The same is disputed to by learned counsels for the respondents.
5. On hearing the contentions, we do not find any merit in this appeal. What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was an order passed by the Karnataka State Women Commission, Bengaluru. The Commission had set aside the transfer order passed by respondent No.1 herein transferring the appellant from one depot to another. The learned Single Judge while considering the plea has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 10 of the Karnataka State Commission for Women Act, 1995 and came to the conclusion that the Commission does not have power of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) in order to try the suit and in particular, only in respect of the matters specified in Clause ‘A’ to ‘F’ therein. Therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such an order.
6. On considering the same, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the order that the Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Commission is not a Court. It has limited power as per the Act. In the present case, it has acted beyond authority of law. It has assumed power not vested in it. Its actions are mala-fide.
7. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge, that calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
However, the appellant is always at liberty to pursue such other remedies as available to her in law.
Pending I.A’s. stand rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj