- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35513 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETHA SALGAME W/O SRI. ANAJAN R. SALGAME AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1303, SAI NIVAS, 32ND "F" CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 041. 2. SRI. ANAJAN R. SALGAME S/O S. N. RAMACHANDRA, R/AT NO.1303, SAI NIVAS, 32ND "F" CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 041. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAO S S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, NO.14/3, IIND FLOOR CFC BUILDING, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. 4. SRI. CHAMARAJ S/O LATE N. BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.471, SWATHI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, GOVT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; SRI. AC MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4 - CHAMARAJ SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED.12.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To quash the notice dated 12.7.2017 bearing NO.KARA/AJA/ABU/AYOGA/ETHARE/Cr.P.C- 108/2017-18 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-A. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 ii. To set aside and quash the proceedings initiated by the second respondent on the complaint filed by the fourth respondent dated 29.6.2017 vide Annexure B and iii. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by notice dated 12.7.2017 issued by respondent No.2-the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) calling upon the petitioner to appear before the said Commission on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.4 dated 29.6.2017. 3. Sri.Srinivas Rao.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that; 3.1. The petitioners are the owners of the property bearing No.5/1 new No.3, 4th cross, Laxmi Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore, which has been let out to respondent No.4 on a monthly rental of Rs.20,000/-. Respondent No.4, not having - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 paid the rentals, was called upon to vacate the same. 3.2. Though respondent No.4 vacated the premises, he did not hand over the vacant possession; the petitioners had filed a police complaint with Ashok Nagar police station on 31.12.2017; the police visited the property unlocked the same conducted a mahazar and thereafter handed over the vacant premises to the petitioner. 3.3. It is thereafter that respondent No.4 got issued a legal notice making allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner had abused respondent No.4 in filthy language making use of his caste and filed a complaint with the respondent No.2-Commission, in pursuance of which the above notice had been issued. 3.4. His submission is that the complaint filed by respondent No.4 was only to get over the rental dues on part of respondent No.4. The premises - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 having not been handed over there is no dispute in relation thereto and insofar as the dues, the petitioner is now not wanting to further prosecute respondent No.4 and no action has been taken by the petitioner insofar as same is concerned. 4. Notice having been issued, though respondent No.4 has been served, respondent No.4 has chosen not to appear or be represented in the matter. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the notice which has been issued by respondent No.2 on the ground of there being an allegation made in the complaint, that there is an abuse of respondent No.4 by using his caste, the Commission had exercised its jurisdiction, it would be therefore be required for the Commission to adjudicate the same after due enquiry. 6. On enquiry with the learned counsel for respondent No.2 as to whether respondent No.4 is appearing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 before the Commission, he submits that respondent No.2-Commission itself is not functioning on account of the non-appointment of the president for the last 2 years. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it is the Chief Secretary who is required to appoint the President. Hence, The Chief Secretary is directed to look into this aspect and ensure that the long pending appointment is made at the earliest, an important commission like Respondent No.2 not functioning due to the above reason would negate the rights of the members belong to Schedule Caste and Schedule tribes. 8. Coming back to the merits of the matter, the grievance and the document as filed including the notice which has been issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner would indicate that the dispute between petitioner and respondent No.4 are civil dispute between a landlord and tenant which has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 been given a colour of an abuse making use of the caste of respondent No.4. There being a dispute between petitioner and respondent No.4 being established by the legal notice issued by respondent No.4 himself, as regards rental dues and the payment thereafter. 9. In that view of the matter, ex-facie it appears that the provision of Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 has been sought to be abused by respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 has exercised the powers of Civil Court to issue summons in a matter where no such summons is required to issue. 10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The notice dated 12.7.2017 bearing NO.KARA/AJA/ABU/AYOGA/ETHARE/Cr.P.C- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11557 WP No. 35513 of 2017 108/2017-18 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A and the complaint filed by respondent No.4 dated 29.6.2017 at Annexure B are quashed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT:SK