(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice dated 21-9-2007 issued by respondent bearing No. KRNA : Complaint 2007-2008: 1970 vide annexure-A, which is consequent upon receipt of complaint by the complainant as per annexure-B, is without jurisdiction and authority, has presented this writ petition.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that, he is claiming to be the producer of the kannada Feature Film 'cheluvina Chittara' which has completed 100 days of its run in all 37 centers where it has been released and has created a record in the Kannada Film industry and petitioner also held a grand gala function in this regard on 8-10-2007 at "gayatri Vihara", Palace Ground, Bangalore, where a galaxy of film stars and other high dignitaries of the film industry had attended and this function had been attended by thousands of fans. Be that as it may. It is shock and surprise to the petitioner, when he has received notice from the respondent vide An-nexure-A. fixing the date of appearance for enquiry in the office of the respondent, on the basis of the complaint given by Sri. N. V. Venkataramanaiah and others, without bearing their signatures, without even mentioning their names. parentage, age and door number identifying themselves and without furnishing their postal address, in particular, mentioning that the girl by name Kumari Amoolya (heroine) who is studying in IX standard, aged 14-15 years is made to wear school uniform and school bag and to have romance with (hero) Ganesh who is aged two times of the age of the girl in the college campus. It is the case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the alleged pseudonymous complaint given by Sri venkataramanaiah and others, respondent without taking any decision has issued the impugned notice fixing the date of appearance. Having regard to these backgrounds, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this Court by way of filing this writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice issued by the respondent as referred above.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government advocate appearing for respondent.