V.M. Thiaggu Gounder and V.M. Raghu Gounder vs Karnataka State Commission for Women and Smt. Jayakumari Raju

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Counsel for the petitioners. The Counsel for the respondent No. 2 remained absent though the matter was called out twice.

The facts, as stated are that the petitioners are the residents of Pollachi Village in Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners, who are stated to be the Directors of a Company, in the name of M/s PRT Exports and also doing business in Bangalore, had taken a premises on rent from the second respondent. The petitioners had also availed loans from the Stale Bank of Mysore for purposes of their business. The said Bank had granted Cash Credit facility for purposes of the petitioners'' industry, engaged in the manufacture of clothes and had also grunted Rs. 70 Lakh under Foreign Demand Bill Purchase and under Foreign Inland Letters of Credit limit etc.

The second respondent had offered collateral security of her property bearing No. 95, in Koramangala Industrial Lay-out, 5th Block, Bangalore, for obtaining loan facilities from the Bank and in this regard, the second respondent had received a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/-. These transactions were of the year 1993-94. It transpires that Karnataka State Industrial investment Development Corporation, which had also financed, the petitioners had unilaterally taken action u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Since the petitioners had defaulted in payment of loans, the State Bank of Mysore, in turn, had filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.13 Crore. In the said application, the Slate Dank of Mysore, had arraigned respondent No. 2 as a party, as she was the guarantor for the loan. The said respondent had entered appearance and had also filed statement of objections, categorically admitting that the properly was offered as collateral security and the said application has been disposed of and Recovery Certificate has been issued.

At this point of time, the respondent No. 2, out of sheer vengeance and on account of proceedings having been initiated against her property, which she had offered as collateral security, filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Karnataka Slate Commission for Women. The said authority had issued summons to petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 had appeared before the first respondent and requested for a copy of the complaint which was refused. The petitioner No. 1 had thereafter filed an application seeking a copy of the same which was rejected. The petitioner No. 1 had to resort to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ultimately to obtain a copy .of the complaint.

It is further slated that though no summons was served on petitioner No. 2, respondent No. 1 has issued a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu directing him to secure the presence of both the petitioners. It is this which is under challenge.

The Counsel for the petitioners would contend that given the circumstance, there may be discord between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, who has offered her property as collateral security for the loan transactions incurred by the pensioners, there is no warrant for any action being initiated by the first respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka State Commission for Women Act, 1995. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) And further, the extreme measure of the petitioners being brought under the custody of the police to be produced before the Chairman of the first respondent, was a coercive measure, which was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and tantamount to nigh-handed arbitrary action which has damaged the reputation of the petitioners and has caused deep anguish.

It is contended that insofar as the Act is concerned, Section 9 provides for the functions of the Commission and the relevant Clause (1) provides that the Commission shall look into the complaint and take suo motu notice of matters relating to deprivation of women''s rights, non-implementation of laws enacted to provide protection to women and also to achieve the objective of equality and development and non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and ensuring welfare and providing relief to women and lake up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate Authorities.

This is a Clause which would come closest to the power under which any such summons could be issued to the petitioners and since the act complained of does not, in any way, relate to the objects, in respect of which such functions or powers could have been exercised, the action of the first respondent in having directed the Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu to produce the petitioners before the Chairman of the first respondent at the instance of the second respondent is, hence, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is contended that the notice pursuant to the complaint of respondent No. 2 which does not on the face of it indicate any cause for the Chairman of the first respondent to have issued the notice at Annexure-D the same is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal which requires to be set at naught.

At the outset it is to be noticed that a reading of Section 9 would indicate that the action initiated by the Chairman of the first respondent does not relate to a grievance which would be covered under the objects of the Act or in any way providing jurisdiction to the Chairman to intervene in the matter. There is no circumstance which warranted the interference of the Commission at the instance of respondent No. 2. The notice issued on the basis of the complaint is at Annexure-J The complaint essentially narrates the manner in which the second respondent has come in contact with the petitioners and that she was mislead into offering collateral security and she has later learnt that the petitioners in their transaction have not been above board and have sought to jeopardize her properly. This, in any event, would not be a complaint of a nature which warrantee the interference of the Chairman, Karnataka State Commission for Women and hence, the notice is without jurisdiction and the coercive measures in having the petitioners brought before the Chairman of the Commission under police custody is an extreme measure and ought not lo have been exercised in the manner that it has been done.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-D is quashed.