Writ petitions can challenge the jurisdiction of statutory bodies, with jurisdiction being fundamental to the authority exercised by the Maharashtra State Minority Commission under the Maharashtra State Commission Act, 2004.

JUDGMENT :

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of both the parties and is taken up for final disposal.

3. Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned B-Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1- State waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Shubhankar Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

4. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the notices dated 15^th January 2025 and 12^th February 2025, issued by the Respondent No.1- Maharashtra State Minority Commission as well as all further proceedings initiated before the Respondent No.1 pursuant to the issuance of said notices.

5. The Petitioner is engaged in business of construction of infrastructure projects. The Respondent No.2 had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Petitioner for obtaining lease rights in respect of the premises bearing Unit No. 201, 2^nd floor, SMC Square, LBS Marg, Khopat, Thane (W). The said premises were admeasuring 28,800 sq. ft. The total consideration of the said transaction was fixed to the tune of Rs.27,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Crores only) and an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) was deposited by the Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner. There was a balance amount of Rs.26,50,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-six Crores and Fifty Lakhs only) which was due and payable by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner. Since a dispute arose between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, the later approached the Respondent No.1 for redressal of his grievance arising from the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the notices dated 15^th January 2025 and 12^th February 2025 are issued by the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Maharashtra State Minority Commission Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). He states that the Respondent No.1 did not have jurisdiction to send such notices. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not committed any act which can confer jurisdiction to the Respondent No.1 to invoke the powers of the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the said Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Respondent No.2 has not even supplied the copy of the complaint to the Petitioner and that the entire proceedings before the Respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction.

7. The learned Counsel Mr. Chaitanya Nikate appearing for the Respondent No.1 stated that the complaint was maintainable. He states that a petition against mere show cause notice would not lie before this Court and that the Petitioner can very well make all the submissions before the Respondent No.1 and that this Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not entertain the Petition. He prayed for a dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

8. We had asked the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 to produce the copy of the complaint which his client had made to the Respondent No.1. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 had tendered the copy of the complaint. The contents of the said complaint are as follows :-

“To,

Honourable Shri Pyrae Khan Sir,

President,

Alpasankhyak Aayog Maharashtra Rajya

Applicant : Paras Jain, F 103, Radhe Apartment, HB

Town, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur

Subject : Request for your interference in the matter of refund of Rs. 50 Lakhs from M/s Akruti SMC Joint Venture.

Dear Sir,

I introduce myself as Paras Jain a resid