ORDER : The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 4.8.2017, issued by the respondent No.1 inter-alia seeking for direction to the respondent No.1 to drop all further proceedings arising out of the notice impugned herein. 2. The petitioner purchased the nonagricultural land, measuring 04 acres 24 guntas in Sy.No.150/1 situated at Basvakalyan under the registered sale deed on 19.12.2012 and made an application to the 3rd respondent seeking approval of the layout in respect of the said land. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to furnish the certificate from the Tahasildar regarding validity of nonagricultural order and also the sketch bifurcating the alleged land and also the sketch relating to the same. After being satisfied, layout was approved. However, the 1st respondent issued notice, directing the petitioner to attend enquiry relating illegal layout being formed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 3. The learned counsel Sri Ravi B. Patil, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent Authority has no jurisdiction to issue notice impugned herein and as such the same deserves to be quashed. He would further contend that the petitioner after obtaining the necessary approval from the 5th respondent Authority and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipalities Act has formed the layout. The 1st respondent, without authority of law has issued the notice, calling upon the petitioner on the complaint said to have been lodged by the 6th respondent herein. Accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the notice impugned herein. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 supports the impugned notice and contends that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.6, the respondent No.1 has issued the notice. The petitioner without appearing before respondent No.1-Authority has rushed to the Court. The writ petition is premature as there is no cause of action for the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction at this stage. 5. The learned counsel Sri. Gourish S. Kashampur, appearing for respondent No.4 supporting the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the respondent No.1 has acted upon the complaint made by respondent No.6. It is necessary to enquire into the issue as regards the illegal layout formed by the petitioner, to discern the truth, the respondent No.1 has issued the notice. Gourish S. Kashampur, appearing for respondent No.4 supporting the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the respondent No.1 has acted upon the complaint made by respondent No.6. It is necessary to enquire into the issue as regards the illegal layout formed by the petitioner, to discern the truth, the respondent No.1 has issued the notice. According to the learned counsel, the petition is not maintainable and requires to be rejected. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is evident from the impugned notice at Annexure-K that the basis for issuance of the said notice is the complaint made by respondent No.6. The respondent No.1 has not mentioned the source of power under which the said notice is issued. Any complaint lodged by a third party cannot be the basis for the respondent No.1 to issue notice and to enquire about the illegal layout approved by the Commissioner, City Municipality Council. No power is vested with respondent No.1 to conduct such an enquiry. It is nothing but the colourable exercise of power by the respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents except pointing out to Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 are not in a position to trace the source of power under which the respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notice. Section 306 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, more particularly under Section 306 of the Act, the power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner for suspending execution of orders etc., of Municipal Councils. Even as per the delegation of powers notified by the Government of Karnataka, no such power is delegated to the Assistant Commissioner respondent No.1 to execute the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 306 of the Act. Moreover, the said power can be exercised in case of Town Municipal Council, not City Municipal Council. The present case relates to City Municipal Council. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent deserves to be rejected. 8. As aforesaid, the respondent No.1 has exceeded the jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice and accordingly the same is quashed. Writ petition is allowed.