1. Petitioner in this petition has sought to quash or to set - aside the impugned notice dated 30th June 2008 bearing No. CCB / (Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.) 08 issued by the fourth respondent at Annexure - H and all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice and to award exemplary cost payable by respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

2. The facts in brief are that, petitioner is a licensed catering contractor and doing catering business with the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Limited. The petitioner has obtained the necessary licence to manage a stall in Yeshwanthpur Railway Station and on board service in Brindavan Express Train No. 2639-40. MAS - SBC. The said licence was awarded in view of cancellation of licence granted in favour of the fifth respondent after coming to know that he had misrepresented the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Ltd. by producing false documents and not catering as per the terms and conditions of the licence granted in favour of said respondent. Keeping that in mind, the fifth respondent instead of redressing his grievance before the competent authority, has chosen to threaten the petitioner and his family members with dire consequences. At that stage, petitioner was constrained to submit an application to the jurisdictional police station to give police protection on 30th June 2008. The police authorities viz. the fourth respondent Police Inspector, Women and Narcotics Division, City Crime Branch, N.T. Pet, Bangalore, instead of extending protection to the petitioner and his family members, to the shock and surprise of petitioner, has issued the notice vide Annexure - H. The said authority has entertained the complaint given by the fifth respondent and in turn called upon the petitioner to appear before him regarding the allegation made by fifth respondent regarding the financial misappropriation made by petitioner to the fifth respondent on 1st July 2008 at 11 a.m. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by fourth respondent, has presented the instant writ petition on the ground that, the fourth respondent has no power to register the complaint against the petitioner and conduct investigation. Therefore, petitioned is before this Court redressing his grievance seeking appropriate reliefs.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner at the outset submitted that, the impugned notice issued calling the petitioner to appear before the fourth respondent on 1st July 2008 at 11 a.m. for investigation cannot be sustained and is one without jurisdiction for the reason that, the said authority has no power whatsoever to receive the complaint and conduct investigation against the petitioner and that, the only competent authority who can register and proceed with the investigation is the jurisdictional Police authority and not the fourth respondent. To substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2002 Kar. P. 2909 in the case of N. Rajachar v. Kodandarama, wherein at paragraph 20, it is held that, the CCB and CCB (F and M) are not police station and undisputedly, they have no authority to register the case. On the other hand, the case has to be registered in the respective Police Station and thereafter only, they have to take up investigation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned notice issued by fourth respondent is liable to be set aside at the threshold.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents and after perusal of the notice impugned and other material available on record, including the order passed by this Court in the case of N. Rajachar v. Kodandarama, reported in ILR 2002 Kar. 2909, it emerges that, this court has held that, the CCB and CCB (F and M) are not police station and undisputedly, they have no authority to register the case. On