IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15820 of 2009 Banarsi Prasad Singh, son of Late Mahabir Prasad Singh, village and PS Pasaraha, District Nalanda – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Deputy Secretary. 2) The Bihar State Commission for women, through its Chairperson Mostt. Leshi Singh. 3) Swarn Lata Singh, daughter of Bijoy Kumar Singh, village Katahara, PS Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur – Respondents. 3 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Bihar State Commission For Women has issued a notice to his son to appear before them and to show cause regarding certain allegations leveled against the petitioner’s son by respondent no.3 Swarn Lata Singh. The case of the petitioner is that his son Diwakar Prasad Singh is a brilliant student and is studying at Bangalore. He has no relationship with respondent no.3 and in fact respondent no.3 cannot even identify him by face and an absolutely false and fabricated claim has been raised by her in order to take undue advantage as the petitioner’s son who has good prospect in life. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without any enquiry the Commission has issued the impugned notice. It is further submitted that since respondent no.3 has appeared and not filed a counter affidavit, this court should accept what is said in the writ petition and allow it. It is further argued that by virtue of issuing the impugned notice the fundamental right of the petitioner’s son would be curtailed and he would be forced to appear before the Commission to answer the allegations leveled against him which are completely false. Great emphasis has been placed on the fact that the 2 girl is handicapped and that she has not disclosed how and when she was associated with the petitioner’s son and in fact would not be able to even identify him. The Bihar State Commission For Women Act, 1999 was enacted by Bihar Act 6 of 1999. Section 10 deals with the functions of the Commission. The relevant portion is being quoted below: The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions namely:- (a) To investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under existing laws; (b) . . . (c) . . . (d) . . . (e) . . . (f) Look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters relating to the following subjects:- (i) deprivation of women’s rights; (ii) non-implementation of laws enacted to provide protection to women and also to achieve the objective of equality and development; (iii) non-compliance of policy dec isions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and ensuring welfare and providing relief to women; and take up the issues arising out of such matters 3 with appropriate authorities; (g) . . . (h) . . . (i) . . . (j) . . . (k) . . . (l) . . . (m) . . . (n) . . .” In view of the provisions and scope of the functions of the Commission, it cannot be said that the Commission did not have power to issue notice to the petitioner, or for that matter the grievance of the petitioner that an enquiry ought to be conducted before issuance of notice is not tenable. Enquiry may or may not be necessary, it will depend on the facts and the show cause filed by the petitioner’s son, therefore, at this stage to preempt the issuance of a show cause is not justifiable. In fact, the issues raised, at this stage, cannot be adjudicated by the writ court. It would be proper for the petitioner’s son to respond to the notice. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable and premature. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)