- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45012 WP No. 57561 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.57561 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B.ROAD MYSORE-570 001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES NO.14/3, II FLOOR C.F.C.BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHIKKAJAVARAIAH MAJOR S/O. JAVARAIAH BUGATHAGAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.C. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45012 WP No. 57561 of 2018 31-5-2018 IN CASE NO.535 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-Q 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 E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the Order dated 31.05.2018 in Case No.535/2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by respondent No.1, inter alia, sought for a direction to declare that respondent No.1 has no power or authority to enquire into the complaint submitted by respondent No.2. 2. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that respondent No.1 has no authority under law as per the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, Sri Christopher Noel A., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that respondent No.1 has passed impugned order at Annexure-Q, which is only - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45012 WP No. 57561 of 2018 directory in nature and however there is no observation made by respondent No.1, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned and accordingly, sought to justify the action. 4. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, respondent No.1 has passed an order by exercising jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act. By looking into the power and function of the respondent- Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution of India and also the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Ors., reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357, wherein the respondent No.1 - Commission has no jurisdiction to issue direction to the acquiring body i.e., the petitioner herein, to do a particular thing in a particular manner. 5. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is governed by the provisions under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the learned counsel appearing for respondent would say that the impugned order is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45012 WP No. 57561 of 2018 only directory in nature, however, the respondent has to exercise its power as per Section 10 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 31.05.2018 in Case No.535/2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24