Judgment :- (This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the notice issued dated 29.2007 is without jurisdiction and authority as per Annex-A which is consequent upon receipt of complaint by the respondent as per Annex-B.) The petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned notice dated 29.2007 issued by respondent bearing No.KRNA.Complaint: 2007-2008: 1970 vide Annexure-A which is consequent upon receipt of compliant by the complainant as per Annexure-B, is without jurisdiction and authority, has presented this writ petition. 2.The grievance of the petitioner is that, he is claiming to be the producer of the kannada Feature Flim “Cheluvina Chittara” which has completed 100 days of its run in all 37 centers where it has been released and has been released and has created a record in Kannada Film industry and petitioner also held a grand gala functions in this regard on 10.2007 at “Gayatri Vihara”, Palace Ground, Bangalore where a Galaxy of Film Stars and other high dignitaries of the film Industry had attended and this function had been attended by thousand of fans. Be that as it may. It is shock and surprise to the petitioner, when he has received notice from the respondent vide Annexure-A, fixing the date of appearance for enquiry in the office of the respondent, on the basis of the complaint given by Sri N.V. Venkataramanaiah and others, without bearing their signatures, without even mentioning their names, parentage age and Door number identifying themselves and without furnishing their postal address, in particular, mentioning that the girl by name Kumari Amoolya (heroine) who is studying in IX standard, aged 14-15 years is made to wear school uniform and school bag and to have romance with (Hero) Ganesh who is aged two times of the age of the girl in the college campus. It is the case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the alleged Pseudonymous complaint given by Sri. Venkataramanaiah and others, respondent without taking any decision has issued the impugned notice fixing the date of appearance. Having regard to these backgrounds petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this Court by way of filing this writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice issued by the respondent as referred above. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent. 4. Having regard to these backgrounds petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this Court by way of filing this writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice issued by the respondent as referred above. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent at the outset submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, on the ground that only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent and instead of giving reply to the said show-cause notice, petitioner has rushed before this Court, invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent has specifically stated in para-5 of the objections that, the object and purpose of the Commission is to see the all round development of the women and the said Commission had sue-moto exclusive power under the Karnataka State Commission for Women-1995 and it is in no way limited by the powers of National Commission of Women as alleged by petitioner of the powers and the functions of the Commission is clearly enumerated under the provisions of section 9 and 10 of the said Act. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent has submitted that the impugned notice issued by the respondent is in accordance with the provision of sections 9 and 10 of the Act and in accordance with law and therefore petitioner is not entitled for any relief before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed that, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner may be dismissed as mis-conceived/not maintainable. 5. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by petitioner, the stand taken by respondent in the objections, it is not in dispute that, in fact, only show cause notice has been issued by the respondent to the petitioner and petitioner, instead of giving reply to the said show-cause notice, has rushed before this Court and presented this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent. 6. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case as stated above the instant writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of , reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply to the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent vide Annexure-A within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent herein is directed to receive the reply/objections to be filed by petitioner, consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously. With these observations, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of.