ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1, M.P. Human Rights Commission, to supply the copy of entire inquiry report to him. 2. On a perusal of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was admitted to the 'Orthopadic Home' running by a Private Doctor Prakash Lodhikar who assured him that he would be completely alright within a period of three years. Operation of both the legs was done on 19-11-98 by the said doctor and thereafter the petitioner was suggested to do some exercise. He discharged from the said Orthopadic Home on 15-3-89. According to the petitioner the Doctor also advised him to do massage of his legs and not to bend his legs which he seriously followed. It is averred that the petitioner availed the treatment from time to time. On 2-2-95 the then Collector Shri Raut referred the petitioner to an another specialist Orthopadic Doctor Shri R.S. Dhir, Bilaspur who informed him that Dr. Lodhikar has falsely assured him that he would recover. As the petitioner did not recover and became more helpless he made an application to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, M.P., Bhopal on the ground that there had been violation of human rights. He also prayed for grant of damages. Lodhikar has falsely assured him that he would recover. As the petitioner did not recover and became more helpless he made an application to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, M.P., Bhopal on the ground that there had been violation of human rights. He also prayed for grant of damages. It is also setforth in the writ petition that an enquiry was conducted by the respondent who by impugned letter dated 24-4-96 informed the petitioner in the following terms :-- ^^vkids mijks fo"k;d izdj.k esa vk;ksx }kjk tkap djkbZ xbZA tkap esa crk;k x;k gS fd MkDVj }kjk vkidk lgh bykt fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa bykt esa fdlh izdkj dh ykijokgh ugha cjrh xbZ Fkh vkSj tgka rd fdlh in ij fu;qf fnykus dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa vki ftyk iapk;r ls lEidZ djsa] D;ksafd fu;qf ds vf/kdkj mUgsa iznk fd;s x, gSaA** The petitioner made further representation to the competent authority of Human Rights Commission who vide Annexure P-4 dated 31-3-97 informed the petitioner in the following manner :-- ^^mijks lanfHkZr i= dk i;k voyksdu gksA iwoZ esa vk;ksx }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh tkudkjh ls voxr djk;k x;k gSA vr,o vkidk izdj.k uLrhc) fd;k x;k] i;k bl laca/k esa vc ckj&ckj i= O;ogkj u djsaA** Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for supply of the copy of the inquiry report vide Annexure P-5 dated 3-10-98. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 18 of the Human Rights Commission Act (in short 'the Act') to highlight that the petitioner is entitled to the supply of copy of enquiry report. 3. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is apposite to refer to Sections 17 and 18 of the Act which read as under:-- "17. 3. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is apposite to refer to Sections 17 and 18 of the Act which read as under:-- "17. Inquiry into complaints :-- The Commission while inquiring into the complaints of violations of human rights may-- (i) call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority or organisation subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it: Provided that-- (a) if the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own; (b) if no receipt of information or report, the Commission is satisfied either than no further inquiry is required or that the required action has been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly: (ii) without prejudice to anything contained in Clause (i), if it considers necessary having regard to the nature of the complaint, initiate an inquiry. 18. 18. Steps after inquiry :-- The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:-- (1) where the inquiry discloses, the Commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant, it may recommended to the concerned Government or authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons; (2) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary; (3) recommend to the concerned Government or authority for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (4) subject to the provisions of Clause (5) provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative; (5) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission; (6) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission." 4. On a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions it is quite clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the investigation report made by the Commission inasmuch as the Commission has not found, on an inquiry, that there has been violation of one's right or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant. That apart, the case of the petitioner was closed in the year 1996 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 1999. On both counts, I am not inclined to entertain the application. Accordingly, it is dismissed in limine.