JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P9. Ext.P8 is a notice issued by the 1st respondent on Ext.P9 complaint. The 1st respondent, the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ('the Commission'), is constituted under the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007 ('the Act'). 2. According to the petitioner, she is the daughter of one Abdul Samad, who had gifted certain properties to the petitioner through the document marked as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is a correction deed in respect of Ext.P1. Ext.P9 complaint is filed by one Jagadhanan (R3) projecting the interest of the 2nd respondent Vasantha, who claims to be the daughter-in-law of one Neelampi Kunchiyan (now deceased). Vasantha and Neelampi Kunchiyan are stated to belong to one among the Scheduled Castes. Neelampi Kunchiyan had filed O.S.No.85/1967 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala against one Abdul Khader Lebha and the aforesaid Abdul Samad (father of the petitioner) claiming declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property and also for injunction. I need not, for the purposes of this case, notice the rival claims put forth by the parties in O.S.No.85/1967 except to state that the claim was in respect of the very same property which forms subject matter of Ext.P9 complaint. Ext.P11 is the judgment of the Munsiff Court, Varkala, on 28.11.1969, finding that the plaintiff Neelampi Kunchiyan had failed to establish his right to the reliefs sought for in the plaint. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Varkala in O.S.No.85/1967, before the Sub Court, Attingal as A.S.No.80/1970. The said appeal has been dismissed by judgment dated 13.7.1972. The judgment and decree has thus become final on 13.7.1972. It appears from a reading of Ext.P9 that the 2nd respondent (daughter-in-law of the plaintiff Neelampi Kunchiyan) seeks to invoke the powers of the Commission essentially to establish title over the property, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.85/1967. 3. I have heard Sri. M.P. Ramanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.V. Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the SC/ST Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the provisions of the Act and particularly Section 9 thereof and contends that none of the functions enumerated in Section 9 empowers the commission to undo a binding inter partes judgment and decree. K.V. Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the SC/ST Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the provisions of the Act and particularly Section 9 thereof and contends that none of the functions enumerated in Section 9 empowers the commission to undo a binding inter partes judgment and decree. He would contend, therefore, that the action taken by the Commission on Ext.P9 complaint is totally without jurisdiction and this Court must, therefore, interdict the proceedings at this stage. He states that this Court need not wait for the final outcome of the proceedings as the proceedings are totally without jurisdiction. He would assert that, on the basis of the principles laid down in Calcutta Discount Company v. Income Tax Officer [ (1961) 41 ITR 191 ], this Court should not drive the parties to lengthy and unnecessary proceedings, if it is to be found that the proceedings are totally without jurisdiction. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Department, on the other hand, would rely on the counter affidavit dated 5.7.2016 and contend inter alia that the Commission was well within its authority and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on Ext.P9 complaint and it is for the petitioner to establish that those proceedings should be dropped, by appearing before the Commission and arguing the matter on merits. He would invite my attention to Section 9(b), of the Act, in particular. I notice from the counter affidavit dated 5.7.2016 that, on the basis of the directions issued by the SC/ST Commission, the revenue officials have initiated proceedings to identify the land, which was claimed by the 2nd respondent under her father-in-law Neelampi Kunchiyan. I also notice the allegation of the petitioner that the revenue officials are, on the basis of oral directions issued by the Commission, attempting to carve out the property over which the 2nd respondent claims title and possession through the aforesaid Neelampi Kunchiyan. 6. I have perused the provisions of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007. I find that the functions of the Commission are enumerated in Section 9 of the Act. 6. I have perused the provisions of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007. I find that the functions of the Commission are enumerated in Section 9 of the Act. It is no doubt, true, as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, that the provisions of Section 9(b) empowers the Commission to enquire into the specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Kerala and to take up such matters with the appropriate authorities. However, I cannot read Section 9(b) as empowering the Commission to reopen matters which have attained finality in the manner indicated above and to re-determine the rights, which have been settled by a judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent Commission, on the basis of Ext.P9 complaint, is without jurisdiction. In Calcutta Discount Company (Supra) it was held:- “The High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences.” 7. I, therefore, quash all proceedings initiated by the Commission on the basis of Ext.P9 complaint and declare that no proceedings can be continued in respect of any item of property, which is the subject matter of Ext.P11 judgment in O.S.No. 85/1967. I also direct respondents 4 and 5 to continue to receive the tax from the petitioner in respect of the properties in question, without reference to any proceedings that had been initiated by the 1st respondent. 8. The Writ Petition (Civil) is allowed in the manner indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.