Telangana High Court

Venu Swamy vs The State Of Telangana on 28 October, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

            WRIT PETITION No.22873 OF 2024
Between:

Venu Swamy
                                               ... Petitioner
                             And

The State of Telangana and others
                                           ... Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 28.10.2024


     THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers   :    Yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be   :    Yes

   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to         :    Yes
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?

                        ________________________________
                        MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
                               2
                                                        Wp_22873_2024
                                                                  Sn,j




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

            WRIT PETITION No. 22873 OF 2024



%   28.10.2024


Between:
# Venu Swamy
                                      ... Petitioner
                             And


$ The State of Telangana and others
                                       ... Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud


^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP for Women Development
                                   and Child Welfare


^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Swaroop Orilla, learned
Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional
Advocate General
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri G.V.L.Murthy
? Cases Referred:

i) 2004) 12 SCC 278
ii) 2001) 3 SCC 482
iii) (2006) 12 SCC 28
                                    3
                                                               Wp_22873_2024
                                                                         Sn,j




         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

              WRIT PETITION No.22873 OF 2024


ORDER:

Heard Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare,

Sri Swaroop Orilla, learned Special Government Pleader

representing learned Additional Advocate General

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 on record and

Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking the

prayer as under:

"....to issue order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the summons issued by the 2nd respondent in Petition No 338/TGSE/HYD/ 2024 as null and void as the same is issued in unjust manner and without power and jurisdiction apart from being illegal arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights and against to the provisions of the Telangana State Woman's Commission Act 1998 and consequently this Honorable Court may be pleased to set aside the summons in Petition No. 338/TGSE/HYD/2024 dated 12.08.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass..."

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, as per the

averments made in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in

support of the present writ petition is as under :

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is an

astrologer. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent filed

complaint dated 12.08.2024 before the 2nd respondent by

making false allegations that the petitioner is an astrologer who

maligns celebrities and politicians through irrational predictions.

In consequence to the said complaint, the 2nd respondent

initiated Petition No. 338/TGSCW/HYD/2024 and through this

petition, the 2nd respondent instructed the petitioner herein to

appear before the 2nd respondent commission. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. This Court passed interim orders in favour of the

petitioner on 21.08.2024 in I.A.No. 01 of 2024 in

W.P.No.22873 of 2024 observing as under:-

Heard Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Orilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The learned Special Government Pleader placing reliance on the Section 16(1)(b) and Section 16(1)(2) of

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

the Telangana Women's Commission Act, 1998 contends that the impugned summons, dated 12.08.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is in accordance to law and warrants no interference of this Court.

The learned Special Government Pleader in support of his submissions places reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court

i) B.S.E. Brokers' Forum, Bombay and Others Vs. Securities and Exchanges Board of India reported in (2001) 3 SCC 482, dated 01.02.2001

ii) N.Mani Vs. Sangeetha Theatre and Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 278, dated 16.03.2024

iii) Union of India and another Vs. Kunisettty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, dated 22.11.2006 and in particular para No.14.

The aforesaid first two judgments on the point that omissions or error in mentioning correct provision of law by itself would not denude the power of the authority to take action so long as the same is traceable to a statutory power governing such action and the third judgment of Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Kunisettty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 on the point that the writ petition impugning a show cause notice is premature.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the other hand submits that even assuming that the

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

wrong provision had been cited in the impugned summons i.e., Section 14(1) of Telangana State Women's Commission Act,1998 instead of Section 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(2) yet the impugned summons is illegal since there had been no preliminary investigation conducted by the Telangana State Commission for Women, Hyderabad into the subject issue prior to satisfying itself that the subject complaint made against the petitioner requires to be enquired into.

The learned Special Government Pleader is directed to produce the concerned records by the next date of hearing, relating to preliminary investigation undertaken by the Telangana State Commission for Women, Hyderabad and the material on record which warranted the issuance of the present impugned summons, dated 12.08.2024 to the petitioner herein by the 2nd respondent.

List on 27.08.2024 in the meantime, the impugned summons, dated 12.08.2024 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent is stayed.

The said orders dated 21.08.2024 passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2024 is in force as on date. PERUSED THE RECORD:

5. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and

relevant paragraph Nos. 4, 9, 10, and 12 are extracted

hereunder:-

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

4. In reply to the averments made in Para No.2 to 7 of the affidavit it is submitted that, though the notice was purported to be issued under section 14 of Act, 1998 due to in advertence the provision is wrongly mentioned / quoted as Section 14 (1)(a) for issuance of summons, however omission or error in mentioning the correct provision of law by itself would not denude the power of the authority to take action so long the same is traceable to the statutory power governing such action. In the instant case the 2nd respondent is drawing powers under Section 16 to issue show cause notice and conduct detailed enquiry if it receives any information with regard to allegation of women being subjected to unfair practice. In the instant case the 2nd respondent has received information from two associations i.e., Telugu Film Journalist's Association and Telugu Film Digital Media Association on 12.08.2024 wherein the women member of the said association have endorsed and contended that the petitioner who claims himself as an astrologer, has been maligning the image of many celebrities and politicians who are in the public eye through its rational and unrealistic predictions in the name of astrology.

Further they alleged that, he would be passing unwanted and unasked prediction with respect to celebrities getting married or divorced through his social media which are in the nature of derogatory and demeaning. Further it was alleged that, the celebrities like Naga Chaitanya, Soubitha Dhulipala who

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

would get married would divorce in few months and with such aspersions the petitioner is tarnishing the image of celebrities. Further, the petitioner is also using unpleasant and vulgar thumbnail on social media against women celebrities. In the same fashion the Telugu Film Digital Media Association also gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent against the petitioner on 12.08.2024.

9. It is respectfully submitted that, in the instant case the complaint received by the Commission is not under section 16 1(a). It is pertinent to mention that the complaint dated 12.08.2024 received by the 2nd respondent Commission against the petitioner is under Section 16 (1)(b). Since the 2nd respondent Commission has received information about the unfair practice of the petitioner against women celebrities. Therefore, the requirement of preliminary investigation whether to issue show cause notice or not, is not mandatory when the complaint is received under section 16 (1)(b). In the instant case though the 2nd Respondent is not required to form any preliminary opinion in order to maintain rules of Principles of Natural Justice the petitioner was issued summons/notice dated 12.08.2024 asking him to appear before the 2nd Respondent on 22.08.2024 at 11 A.M. This action of the 2nd respondent is amenable to section 16 1(b) r/w. Section 16 (3) and in those circumstances by no stretch of imagination it cannot be contended that the 2nd Respondent is not having power to initiate action to enquire into any unfair practice.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

10. It is respectfully submitted that since the 2nd respondent Commission has received specific complaint alleging that the petitioner is resorting to tarnishing the image of the women celebrities with derogatory remarks the Commission has initiated action under section 16 1(b) r/w. Section 16 (3) pursuant to the complaint dated 12.08.2024 received from the Telugu Film Journalist's Association and Telugu Film Digital Media Association which would clearly fall under section 16 (1)(b).

12. It is respectfully submitted that the present writ petition is totally premature and approaching this Hon'ble Court at this stage i.e., on issuance of show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 is totally bad in law and contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as well as the Hon'ble High Court. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the petitioner approaches the 2nd Respondent Commission and gives his explanation which would be taken into consideration by the 2nd Respondent Commission before taking further steps in terms of Section 16 of the Act 1998. Therefore the 2nd Respondent requests this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the writ petition as the same is not maintainable since the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition against the show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 without resorting to alternate remedy of filing reply / explanation to the show cause notice dated 12.08.2024.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

6. Summons issued by the Telangana State Commission

for Women, Hyderabad to the petitioner, dated

12.08.2024 is extracted hereunder:-

"WHEREAS the above named petitioners have presented a petition before the Telangana State Women's Commission with certain allegations against you and the said petition has been numbered as Petition No.338/ TGSCW/HYD/2024 on the file of the Commission.

WHEREAS the above petition stands posted to 22.08.2024 for enquiry.

WHEREAS your presence is necessary before the Commission in connection with the enquiry into the above petition.

You are therefore instructed to appear in person before the Commission on 22.08.2024 at 11.00 AM without fail.

Given under the hand and the seal of the Commission, on this the 12th day of August, 2024."

(BY ORDER)

7. Complaint submitted by the respondent No.3 to the

Respondent No.2, dated 12.08.2024 is extracted

hereunder:-

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

"This is to Bring to your kind notice that a person by name Venu Swamy, who claims himself an astrologer has been maligning the image of many celebrities and politicians who are in the public eye through his irrational and unrealistic predictions in the name of astrology.

He has been doing this since long and his target has always been popular and famous individuals. The main motive behind his predictions is to be in the public eye himself.

When celebrities get married or divorced, when politicians contest elections, or to that matter any kind of incident or happening in the lives of famous personalities, he would be right there passing his unwanted and unasked predictions through his social media that are very derogatory and demeaning.

He goes on social media saying that those celebrities who get married would divorce in few months or years. Most importantly this happened with actors like Naga Chaitanya, Samantha and Sobhitha dhulipala. Especially his predictions are focused towards women celebrities and he goes on record using highly disrespectful and horrible terminology. He has been tarnishing the image of celebrities and there has been no control whatsoever.

Following his videos, many other social media channels have been using this content and making his statements viral. Apart from this, such kind of

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

acts are leading to unpleasant and vulgar thumbnails on social media against women celebrities and women journalists too. This is uncalled for and hence we request you to kindly take stringent action on Venu Swamy and his social media too so that he would not dare to do such things in future.

Thanks and regards"

8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing

on behalf of the 2nd respondent placing reliance upon the

averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

the 2nd respondent and the judgment's of the Apex Court

extracted below sought dismissal of the present writ

petition.

i) B.S.E. Brokers' Forum, Bombay and Others Vs.

Securities and Exchanges Board of India reported in

(2001) 3 SCC 482, dated 01.02.2001 and in particular at

para No.22 is extracted hereunder:-

22. It is, no doubt, true that a perusal of Forms 'A' and 'D' shows that these forms are issued pursuant to the requirements of Regulations 3 and 6 and Section 12(2) of the Act which, however, does not by itself determine the nature of the fee in question. It is a well established principle in law that so long as the impugned power

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

is traceable to the statute concerned, mere omission or error in reciting the correct provision of law does not denude the power of the authority from taking a statutory action so long as its action is legitimately traceable to a statutory power governing such action.

ii) N.Mani Vs. Sangeetha Theatre and Others reported in

(2004) 12 SCC 278, dated 16.03.2024 and in particular at

para No.9 is extracted hereunder:-

9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law.

iii) Union of India and another Vs. Kunisettty

Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, dated

22.11.2006 and in particular para No.14 is extracted

hereunder:-

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-

sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the 2nd respondent contends that so long as the

impugned power is traceable to the statute concerned

mere omission or error in reciting the correct provision of

law does not denude the power of the Authority from

taking statutory action so long as its action is legitimately

traceable to a statutory power governing such action and

since the 2nd respondent Commission has received

specific complaint alleging that the petitioner is resorting

to tarnishing the image of the Women celebrities with

derogatory remarks the Commission has initiated action

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

under Section 16 (1)(b) read with Section 16 (3) pursuant

to the complaint dated 12.08.2024 received from the

Telugu Film Journalists' Association and Telugu Film

Digital Media Association which would clearly fall under

Section 16(1)(b) and the Writ Petition as such filed by the

petitioner was not maintainable since the petitioner has

chosen to file the Writ Petition against the

show-cause notice, dated 12.08.2024 without resorting to

filing reply or explanation to the show-cause notice dated

12.08.2024 and further sought dismissal of the Writ

Petition duly vacating the order dated 21.08.2024 in

I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No. 22873 of 2024.

10. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 and

relevant paragraph Nos.6, 9 and 12 are extracted

hereunder:-

6. I submit that in the present case no preliminary investigation is to be made before issuance of summons to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent as pleaded by the petitioner. A preliminary investigation is to be made before issuance of summons only in a case where a written complaint from any women alleging that she has been subjected to any unfair practice but in other cases where the commission on its own knowledge or information received about the unfair

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

practice against women there is no necessity of conducting preliminary investigation before issuance of summons. Summons can be issued based on information received, even in the absence of a formal complaint from the aggrieved party. It is submitted that as per rule 16 of the Telangana Women's commission act 1998 preliminary investigation can be made when the complaint is given by the aggrieved persons, but here in the instant case the commission has issued summons based on information given by us about the acts of the petitioner who claims himself an astrologer.

9. I submit that under section 15 & 16 of the Act the 2nd respondent commission is vested with the power of conducting enquiry into the allegations where a woman has been subjected to any unfair practice. I submit that the representation dated 12.08.2024 submitted to the 2nd respondent is not by a woman but the said representation is submitted by the 3rd respondent i.e., Telugu Film Journalist Association and under the said representation the 3rd respondent association has submitted information about the acts of the petitioner who claims himself an astrologer has been maligning the image of women in the state his unwarranted predictions focussing towards women celebrities that they would divorce in few months or years and he goes on record using highly disrespectful and horrible terminology and his videos in social media

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

channels have been using the content and making his statements viral and such kind of acts are leading to unpleasant and vulgar thumbnails on social media against women celebrities and women journalists too and therefore to take action on the petitioner and his social media.

12. I submit that the 2nd respondent commission received the information from the 3rd respondent under the representation dated 12.08.2024 and issued summons to the petitioner to appear before it on 22.08.2024. I submit that the 2nd respondent has to cause a preliminary investigation before issuance of any process to the person complained against only in a case where the complaint has been made under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act 1998. In the present case, it is undisputed that no complaint was received by the 2nd respondent from a woman, as envisaged under section 16(1)(a) of the Act. Instead, the information was provided by the 3rd respondent through a representation dated 12.08.2024, which falls under the purview of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the provisions of section 16(2) of the Act, which necessitate a preliminary investigation, are not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. As such, the issuance of summons without the requisite preliminary investigation as per section 16(2) of the Act is procedurally flawed.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

11. The learned counsel Sri G.V.L.Murthy appearing on

behalf of the 3rd respondent placing reliance on the

averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

the respondents contends that the petitioner's contention

that the 2nd respondent-Commission has no power or

Authority or Jurisdiction to issue summons to the

petitioner is untenable under law since Section 15 and 16

of the Telangana Women's Commission Act, 1998

contemplates that the 2nd respondent-Commission shall

inquire into any unfair practice concerning the Women

and since the power of conducting enquiry is vested with

the 2nd respondent-Commission, the said power therefore

includes issuing of summons to the persons interested,

taking evidence recording statements etc., for taking

decision thereon and recommend to the Government the

action to be taken in such matters as contemplated under

Section 15(b) of the Act and therefore, no relief as prayed

for by the petitioner can be granted by this Court and the

Writ Petition needs to be dismissed duly vacating the

interim order dated 21.08.2024 passed in I.A.No. 01 of

2024 in W.P.No. 22873 of 2024.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

12. Reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter

filed by the respondent No.2 and relevant paragraph

No.10 is extracted hereunder:-

10. Further, Section 16(1)(b), which permits the Commission to inquire into any unfair practice based on its own knowledge or information, still requires that the alleged conduct meets the threshold of an "unfair practice"

under the Act. It is submitted that the complaints referred to by the Petitioner/Respondent No. 2, purportedly from the Telugu Film Journalists Association and the Telugu Film Digital Media Association, merely assert that the Respondent/Petitioner has made certain predictions regarding public figures and posted content on social media. It is submitted that these complaints do not pertain to any infringement of women's rights, nor do they allege any discriminatory treatment or unfair practices against women, as required by the statutory provisions. Furthermore, the said complaints are speculative in nature and fall outside the Commission's jurisdiction. It is submitted that the complaints referred to do not establish a prima facie case of any actionable misconduct that the Commission is empowered to investigate under the Act, as the purported complaints are afterthought and filed only after filing the instant writ petition. The issuance of a summons in such circumstances is arbitrary and contrary to the procedural safeguards provided in the Act. It is submitted that the mere fact that the

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

Respondent/Petitioner made certain statements or predictions about public figures does not fall under the ambit of "unfair practices" as contemplated in Section 16(1)(b) or Section 16(3) of the Act.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

13. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition challenged

the summons in petition No. 338/TGSCW/Hyd/2024,

dated 12.08.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent on the

following grounds:-

i) Section 14(i)(a) of the Telangana State Women's

Commission Act, 1998 does not apply to the present

petition since the same is intended to be issued to the

witnesses alone.

ii) The entire allegations levelled in the petition do not

make out or constitute an offence under Telangana State

Women's Commission Act, 1998.

iii) The 2nd respondent lacks power and jurisdiction to

issue the subject summons without there being any

specific complaint from any affected person.

iv) The 2nd respondent without examining the contents of

the petition without conducting proper enquiry under

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

Section 16 of the Act had illegally issued the summons to

the petitioner.

14. Few relevant provisions of the Telangana State

Women's Commission Act, 1998 for adjudication of the

present case are extracted hereunder:-

Section 14. (1): The Commission shall, for the purpose of any inquiry under this Act have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public records or copy thereof from any public office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.

(2) Any proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the Commission shall be a court for the purpose of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Section 15(1) : The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:-

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

(i) inquire into any unfair practice, take decision thereon and recommend to the Government the action to be taken in that matter;

(ii) cause investigations to be made by the Director on issues of importance concerning women and issues concerning unfair practice and to report thereon to the Government on the corrective measures to be taken;

15(b): the monitoring of the working of laws in force concerning women with a view to identifying the areas where the enforcement of laws is not adequately effective or has not been streamlined and recommending executive or legislative measures to be taken;

Section 16:(1) The Commission shall inquire into any unfair practice:

(a) on receiving a written complaint from any woman alleging that she has been subjected to any unfair practice or on a similar complaint from her mother or father or sister or brother or from any women's organisation;

(b) on its own knowledge or information;

(c) on any request from the Government. (2) Where the complaint has been made under clause

(a) of sub-section (1), the Commission may, before the issue of any process to the person complained against, cause a preliminary investigation to be made by the Director in such manner as it may deem fit, for the purpose of satisfying itself that the complaint requires to be enquired into. (3) Where the person against whom the complaint has been made, appears and shows cause or fails to appear on the day appointed for that purpose, the Commission may

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

proceed to inquire into the matter in the complaint and take a decision thereon and if the Commission finds that there is unfair practice, it shall recommend to the Government the action to be taken thereon or to initiate prosecution.

(4) The Government shall, within two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission under sub-

section (3) take a decision thereon and intimate the same to the Commission.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, person includes a firm, company, corporation or any public undertaking, association of persons or the Government and its agencies including agencies receiving aid from the Government

15. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the 2nd

respondent Commission received information from the 3rd

respondent by representation dated 12.08.2024 under

Section 16(1) & (b) of the Act pertaining to unfair practice

of the petitioner against Women Celebrities and the 2nd

respondent herein issued the subject summons dated

12.08.2024 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to

appear before the Commission on 22.08.2024 at 11:00 am

without fail under Section 16(3) of the Act.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

16. In the present case no complaint was received by the

2nd respondent from a woman as envisaged under Section

16(1)(a) of the Act and information was provided by the

3rd respondent through a representation dated 12.08.2024

which falls under the purview of Section 16(1)(b) of the

Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 16(2) of the

Act, which necessitate a preliminary investigation are not

applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Hence, plea of

the petitioner that impugned summons, dated 12.08.2024

had been issued without conducting any proper inquiry is

untenable and hence, rejected.

17. A bare perusal of the relevant provision extracted

above clearly indicates that Section 15 and 16 of the Act

contemplates that the 2nd respondent Commission shall

inquire into any unfair practice concerning the woman.

Section 2(h) of the Telangana State Women's

Commission Act, 1998 defines unfair practice as under:-

Section 2(h): "Unfair practice" means any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex for the purpose of or which has the effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women of fundamental, constitutional rights, or of human rights, or of fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social,

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

cultural, civil or any other field or the infringement of any right or benefit conferred on women by or under the provisions of any law for the time being in force or the mental or physical torture or sexual excesses on women;

18. A bare perusal of the functions of the Commission as

stipulated under Section 15 and 16 of the Act clearly

indicates that the Commission has a power to inquire into

any unfair practice concerning the woman and conduct

inquiry into unfair practices and the said power includes

issuing of summons to the persons interested for taking

decision thereon as stipulated under Section 16(3) of the

Act and recommend to the Government the action to be

taken thereon or to initiate prosecution, therefore, this

Court opines that the plea of the petitioner that the 2nd

respondent-Commission has no power or Authority or

Jurisdiction to issue summons to the petitioner is

untenable under law since the 2nd respondent has a duty

to discharge as contemplated under Section 15(b) of the

Act.

19. Section 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(3) and Section 15(1)(i)

and 15(b) are extracted hereunder:-

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

Section 16:(1) The Commission shall inquire into any unfair practice:

(b) on its own knowledge or information;

(3) Where the person against whom the complaint has been made, appears and shows cause or fails to appear on the day appointed for that purpose, the Commission may proceed to inquire into the matter in the complaint and take a decision thereon and if the Commission finds that there is unfair practice, it shall recommend to the Government the action to be taken thereon or to initiate prosecution.

Section 15(1) : The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:-

(i) inquire into any unfair practice, take decision thereon and recommend to the Government the action to be taken in that matter;

20. The 2nd respondent on receipt of representation

dated 12.08.2024 from the 3rd respondent acted as

mandated under Section 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(3) of the Act

and discharged its functions as mandated under Section

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

15(1)(i) and 15(b) of Telangana State Women's

Commission Act, 1998 (referred to and extracted above)

and therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent

acted without jurisdiction, in so far as the grievance of the

petitioner as put-forth orally before this Court that the

petitioner is not aware as to why the petitioner is being

summoned by the 2nd respondent. A bare perusal of the

summons dated 12.08.2024, at the first para itself

indicates that a petition had been presented by the Telugu

Film Journalist Association, Hyderabad and Another

before the Telangana State Women's Commission with

certain allegations against the petitioner herein and the

said petition had been numbered as petition

No.338/TGSCW/

Hyderabad/2024 on the file of the Commission.

21. There is no dispute in so far as the settled proposition

of law on the points

a) It is a well established principle in law that so long as

the impugned power is traceable to the statute concerned,

mere omission or error in reciting the correct provision of

law does not denude the power of the Authority from

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

taking statutory action so long as its action is legitimately

traceable to a statutory power governing such action.

i) The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2004 vol12

SCC 278 passed in N.Mani Vs. Sangeeta Theatre and

Others at para No.9 (referred to and extracted above at

para 8 of the present Judgment),

ii) The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001 vol3

SCC 482 passed in B.S.E Brokers forum Bombay and

Others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and

Others at para 22 (referred to and extracted above at para

'8' of the present Judgment).

iii) In the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India

and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in

2006 vol12 SCC page 28 at para 14, (referred to and

extracted above at para '8' of the present Judgment), it is

held that mere show-cause notice or charge sheet does

not infringe the right of anyone and the Writ Petition lies

only when right of any party is infringed. It is further held

at para 15 of the said judgment that Writ Jurisdiction is

discretionary jurisdiction and hence, such discretion under

Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing

a show-cause notice or charge sheet.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

b) In the present case the petitioner challenged the

issuance of summons, dated 12.08.2024 by the 2nd

respondent herein to the petitioner and this Court opines

that the same is premature.

22. In the present case, the 2nd respondent Commission

traces its power to Section 16(1)(b) read with Section

16(3) and the 2nd respondent discharged its functions as

mandated under Section 15(1)(i) and 15(b) of the Act.

Hence, all the pleas put-forth by the petitioner that the 2nd

respondent lacks jurisdiction is untenable and hence,

rejected.

23. Taking into consideration:-

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent,

c) The interim orders of this Court dated 21.08.2024,

passed in present W.P.No.22873 of 2024,

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3,

e) Duly considering the view of the Apex Court in the

judgments referred to above,

i) B.S.E. Brokers' Forum, Bombay and Others Vs. Securities and Exchanges Board of India reported in (2001) 3 SCC 482, dated 01.02.2001

ii) N.Mani Vs. Sangeetha Theatre and Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 278, dated 16.03.2024

iii) Union of India and another Vs. Kunisettty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, dated 22.11.2006

f) Duly considering the fact as borne on record that the

2nd respondent discharged his functions as mandated

under Section 15(1)(i), Section 15(1)(b) and

exercised its power as mandated under Section

16(1)(b) read with Section 16(1)(3) of the

Telangana Women's Commission Act, 1998 (Act No.9

of 1998),

This Court opines that the petitioner has not made

out any case for grant of relief as prayed for in the

present Writ Petition.

Wp_22873_2024 Sn,j

In so far as the grievance of the petitioner put-forth

orally by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner that the copy of the said complaint dated

12.08.2024 had not been furnished to the petitioner, the

2nd respondent is directed to furnish the same to the

petitioner within one (01) week from today. The 2nd

respondent is directed to proceed with the subject matter

strictly in accordance to law in conformity with principles

of natural justice by giving reasonable opportunity to all

concerned in strict adherence to the provisions of

Telangana State Women's Commission Act, 1998. The