Allowed¶57

Remco (Bhel) House Building v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WP/21161/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), 15.10.2025, E.S.Indiresh J.; WP 21161/2017 (GM-RES); NC 2025:KHC:40787; quashing of notices dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure-E1 to E13) issued by Commissioner, Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; Section 10, Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 — Commission not empowered to adjudicate civil rights of parties; Article 226 Constitution of India; followed W.P.No.63405/2016 (23.11.2020) and W.P.No.46279/2013 (order dated 09.10.2020); jurisdictional excess by SC/ST Commission; parties to settle dispute through proper legal channels; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices at Annexure-E1 to E13 are quashed; it is left open to the parties to resolve their dispute in a manner known to law. ¶57

Remco (Bhel) House Building Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned notices at Annexure-E1 to E13 are quashed; it is left open to the parties to resolve their dispute in a manner known to law.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent Commissioner / Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had jurisdiction to interfere with the civil rights of the parties by issuing the notices dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure-E1 to E13), given Section 10 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002, such that the notices are liable to be quashed.

¶50

Court's answer

Section 10 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 makes clear that the Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties; that provision vests power in the Commission with regard to the object for which the Act was enacted.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Following the declaration of law made by this Court in W.P.No.63405/2016 dated 23.11.2020 and the order dated 09.10.2020 in W.P.No.46279/2013, the impugned notices produced at Annexure-E series are liable to be quashed, and accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 21161 of 2017 (GM-RES) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by members of REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Limited and others against notices dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure-E1 to E13) issued by the Commissioner, Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Examining Section 10 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 — under which the Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties — and following the declaration of law made by this Court in W.P.No.63405/2016 dated 23.11.2020 and the order dated 09.10.2020 in W.P.No.46279/2013, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice E.S.Indiresh held the impugned notices liable to be quashed, allowed the writ petition, quashed the notices at Annexure-E1 to E13, and left the parties free to resolve the dispute in a manner known to law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40787 WP No. 21161 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.21161 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.356, 5^TH MAIN, RPC (REMCO) LAYOUT HAMPI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED 55 YEARS.

¶9

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

¶10

MAHARUDRA KAMMAR S/O DEVENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.502, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶11

SHAKUNTHALA

¶12

D/O SITARAM IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.807, 9^TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, REMCO LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40787 WP No. 21161 of 2017

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

K.G.MANJUNATH S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.478, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶16

RAJU NARAYAN MORE S/O NARAYAN MORE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.506, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶17

BHEEMAPPA P DASHYAL S/O SARAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.511, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶18

SHARADAMBA W/O PUTTAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.521, BHEL LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶19

K.Y.RAJANNA S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.505, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40787 WP No. 21161 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

H.R.SHANKAR

¶23

S/O H.R.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.508, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶24

J. KUBHER

¶25

S/O JAGANATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.479, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶26

A. BALAKRISHNA S/O ANNAMALAI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.479, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶27

12. CHIKKADASU

¶28

S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.476, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶29

VENUGOPAL L. S/O T. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.476, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40787 WP No. 21161 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

UDAYA KUMARI

¶33

W/O AJIT, AGED AOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.476, BHEL LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, PATTANAGERE BENGALURU-560 098.

¶34

…PETITIONERS

¶35

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE COMMISSIONER

¶38

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶39

…RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI. A.C. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

¶42

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 25.02.2017 AS PER ANNX-E1 TO E13.

¶43

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:40787 WP No. 21161 of 2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the notices dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure-E1 to E13) issued by the respondent.

¶50

Sri. Sarvana S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the respondent - Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with the civil right of the parties is concerned and same has to be adjudicated in a manner known to law. In this regard, he refers to the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.63405/2016 dated 23.11.2020.

¶51

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned notices issued by the respondent.

¶52

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the averments made in the writ petition and the averments made in the notices produced at Annexure-E series. In this regard, it is relevant to consider Section 10 of the Karnataka

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40787 WP No. 21161 of 2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶56

Act, 2002, wherein, Section 10 of the Act makes it clear that the Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and that the said provision provides for power vested with the Commission of Enquiry with regard to object for which the said Act has been enunciated therein.

¶57

In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by this Court in W.P.No.63405/2016 dated 23.11.2020 and the order dated 09.10.2020 in W.P.No.46279/2013, I am of the opinion that the impugned notices produced at Annexure-E series are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notices at Annexure-E1 to E13 are hereby quashed. It is open for the parties to resolve the dispute in a manner known to law.

¶58

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶59

sac

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Remco (Bhel) House Building v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remco (Bhel) House Building v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D N Thyagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Raghu Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Hindustan Steel Construction Ltd.

M/S J P Enterprises Vs the Authorized Officer

Smt. Shanaz Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Srinivas Naidu T K Vs the Principal Secretary

M/S Arovea Pinnacle Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Punjab National Bank