Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1160 (RAJ)

S. D. Shastri v. P. C. Shringi

2000-09-14

ARUN MADAN, P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the petitioner in person. This special appeal has been preferred by Mr. S.D. Shastri appellant who appeared in person against the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2669/2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The grievance raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and now before us was to the effect that while he was in service of All India Radio at Sawaimadhopur, he was allotted Govt. quater and consequent upon his transfer from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur he was asked to vacate the premises which he refused to do so within the prescribed time. 2. According to the case as set up by the respondents, the appellant was responsible for having caused the delay in vacating the premises which had resulted in tiff between him and the respondents. Consequently, the order pertaining to recovery of penal rent was passed by the respondent Department against the appellant, which was challenged by way of a writ petition as well. 3. In addition to this, the appellant had also filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (for short "the Commission") which refused to entertain the complaint holding that since the petition is beyond the purview of the Commission, the complaint was not maintainable and the same was accordingly dismissed by order dated 13.10.1999. The appellant had thereafter challenged the order of the Commission before the learned Single Judge who declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the fact that the complaint was not entertainable since the subject matter of the petition was outside the purview of the Commission and that apart, the matter was also pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur. 4. During the course of hearing, the appellant has vehemently contended that the Commission ought to have entertained his complaint since the imposition of penal rent amounts to infringement of his livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The other grounds on which the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge are that there has been third type residential quarter earmarked for senior officers to which the appellant had become entitled w.e.f. 1.4.1995 since the appellant was declared a Programmer Head and power was delegated to him as per seniority. The other grounds on which the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge are that there has been third type residential quarter earmarked for senior officers to which the appellant had become entitled w.e.f. 1.4.1995 since the appellant was declared a Programmer Head and power was delegated to him as per seniority. His further grievance is that the respondents had conspired not to allot earmarked quarter to him and further to displace one Assistant Station Director who was got posted during the period in question when there was a Court case pending regarding the promotion of the appellant. The notice was served on the appellant for vacating the quarter on 20.10.1995 within 10 days but since he could not vacate the same within the stipulated time, another order was issued on 18.6.1997 by respondent No. 1 for imposing penal rent recovery amounting to Rs. 46, 359/- for a period i.e. 31.10.1995 to 25.6.1997. Since his OA No. 383/98 had been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 28.5.1999, the appellant had filed DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3544/1999 in June, 1999 in which ex-parte order was passed by this Court on 14.7.1999 which was subsequently extended till further orders. The Commission had rejected the appellant's complaint dated 9.4.1999 on 13/27 October, 1999. 5. Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 stipulates, as under:- (d) "human rights" means the right relating to file, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India." 6. The case of the appellant does not fall within the four corners of definition of "human rights" and as such in our view the human rights commission was justified in dismissing his complaint. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length with reference to the contentions advanced by him. We are of the view that no case is made out for interference by us with the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge since it is not open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the order dated 3.7.2000. We are of the view that no case is made out for interference by us with the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge since it is not open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the order dated 3.7.2000. Moreover, NHRC has already rejected his petition and hence it is not open to the appellant even to claim violation of any human rights since the order passed by the respondent directing recovery of penal rent is quite independent of the alleged human rights violation. However, we do not propose to enter into the controversy as to the legality of imposition of penal rent in this appeal as the same is under challenge in another Writ Petition No. 3544/1999 which is yet pending, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 8. As a result, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 2669/2000. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******