Siddartha P Shastry Vs the Special Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Siddartha P Shastry Vs the Special Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the matter remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (respondent No.2) has jurisdiction to entertain the application, and whether interference of the Court is warranted with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.1 ought to have delegated the application to respondent No.2 for consideration of the application made by the contesting respondents on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

The order at Annexure-F was not passed by respondent No.2 on the merits of the case but was a rejection of the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1 has not dealt with the finding recorded by respondent No.2; although respondent No.1 concluded that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the merits of the case were not decided.ratio¶39
The matter requires to be remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned; accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - S.6 - jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution assailing order dated 29.03.2023 in Proc. No.MAG(4)/SC/CR/10/2022-23 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 (Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub-Division / District Appellate Tribunal). Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division / Tribunal under the Act) had, by order dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure-F, para 12), rejected the application of the contesting respondents (R3 & R4) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, without any finding on merits. The impugned order held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction but did not deal with respondent No.2's finding nor decide the merits. Held: respondent No.1 ought to have delegated the application to respondent No.2 for consideration on merits; the matter was remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to all parties concerned. Writ petition allowed. (E.S. Indiresh J., 27.10.2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12816 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

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.

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)

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

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.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AND THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023

HC-KAR

KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.

SRI. PADEEP SHASTRY S/O SRI. LATE H.R. GOPAL KRISHAN SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

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, 7^th 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 - NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023

HC-KAR

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.

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.

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 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023

HC-KAR

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.

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 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42635 WP No. 12816 of 2023

HC-KAR

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