ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Call for the records from the 3rd respondent which ultimately issued impugned endorsement Annexure-A dated 10.06.2015 issued by the R3 bearing No.

Hikanima-3/Kaamvasam/CR-04/2015-16 ii. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned endorsement Annexure-A dated 10.06.2015 issued by the R3 bearing the No.

Hikanima-3/Kaamvasam/CR-04/2015-16 iii. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 885/2015 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C. II Court, D.K. Mangalore registered for offence under section 22-B or Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and C.C.No.1361/2015 pending before the Court of JMFC II Court, D.K. Mangalore registered for offence under section 31 of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1951 (Annexure- B and C)

iv. Issue such other relief’s as it deems fit to grant in favour of the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and is in the business of providing financial assistance to its members for purchase of house sites and also for construction of houses. The third respondent having visited the premises of the petitioner on 28.05.2014 had submitted a report in pursuance of which a show cause notice came to be issued on 17.07.2014 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why criminal action should not be initiated against the petitioner for non-registration/non-continuance of the registration under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’). The petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a commercial establishment. It does not carry any commercial activity in respect of third parties, but it is only assisting its own members to obtain financial assistance and as such, the same is not being a commercial activity, the Act of 1961 would not apply to the petitioner.

3. The third respondent not being satisfied with the reply initiated two separate criminal cases against the petitioner viz., in C.C.No.885/2015 for offence under Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and in C.C.No.1361/2015 for offence under Section 31 of the Act of 1961. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the petitioner would again reiterate that the petitioner does not carry out any commercial activity; there is no business as such which has been carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner only provide assistance to its own members which cannot be said to be commercial in nature and as such, the Act of 1961 would not apply to the petitioner. Insofar as the proceedings initiated under Minimum Wages Act, Sri.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel would submit that there being no commercial activity being carried out and the activity of the petitioner not being scheduled under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, no such proceedings could have been initiated and as such, he submits that both are required to be quashed.

5. Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Patil, learned HCGP for respondents and perused papers.

6. Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act of 1961 defines ‘Commercial Establishment’, which reads as under:-

2(e) “commercial establishment” means a commercial or trading or banking or insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service in which persons employed are mainly engaged in office work, a hotel, restaurant, boarding or eating house, a cafe or any other refreshment house, a theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment and includes such establishments as the State Government may by notification declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act;

7. Sub-section (g) of S