Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49265 (KAR)

SIDDARTHA P SHASTRY v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 1

WP/12816/2023 · 2025-10-27

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12816 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDARTHA P. SHASTRY S/O SRI. PRADEEP SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O A/8, A.P.M.C, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. 2. SAMARTH P. SHASTRY S/O SRI PRADEEP SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O 108, BENAKA KOTE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - 1 BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU AND BENGALURU DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AND THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023 KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. SRI. PADEEP SHASTRY S/O SRI. LATE H.R. GOPAL KRISHAN SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 4. SMT. SUDHA PRADEEP W/O SRI. PRADEEP SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BOTH R3 AND R4 ARE R/O ARIVE DESIGNERS, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, BANK OF BARODA COLONY, J.P. NAGAR, 7th PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2023 PASSED BY R1 HEREIN IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.MAG(4)/SC/CR/10/2022-23 A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS HEREWITH SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order bearing No.MAG (4)/SC/CR/10/2022-23 dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri Srinivas V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Shriram Adiga, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 3. It is argued by Sri Srinivas V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.2, particularly paragraph No.12 thereof, that respondent No.2 has arrived at a conclusion that the said authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application, however, no finding is made on the merits of the case by respondent No.2. Accordingly, learned counsel has sought interference of this Court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and submitted that respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to entertain the same. 5. In this regard, taking into consideration the finding recorded by respondent No.2 in paragraph No.12 of the order at Annexure-F as well as the impugned order at Annexure-A, I am of the view that, respondent No.1 has not dealt with the finding recorded by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.1 has arrived at a conclusion that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, however merits of the case has not been made accordingly. In this regard, respondent No.1 ought to have delegated the application to respondent No.2 for consideration of the application made by the contesting respondents herein on the merits of the case. The order at Annexure-F has not been passed by respondent No.2 on the merits of the case but by rejecting the application on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023 the ground of lack of jurisdiction. I find that the matter requires to be remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the all parties concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49