Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 846 (MP)

S. S. Udhawath v. M. P. Human Rights Commission

2001-11-22

ARUN MISHRA

body2001
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. These two writ petitions challenge the order passed by the M.P. Human Rights Commission, respondent No. 1. The Human Rights Commission held the petitioners guilty of violation of human rights and recommended departmental enquiry against them and further directed the State Government to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for illegal detention and beating of Radhe Shyam Korku, a labourer. The complainants were directed to be paid Rs. 30,000/- and Radhe Shyam Korku, who was illegally detained and beaten was ordered to be paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by the State. The State was given liberty, if it chooses to recover the amount from the petitioners. It was further recommended that the petitioners should not be given the charge of police station for 3 years. 2. The petitioner; S.S. Udhawat in Writ Petition No. 4140/2001, is the town inspector of Police and was posted at Police Station Harda, whereas the Petitioner; Subhash Pawar in Writ Petition No. 4166/2001 was posted as Sub- Inspector, Police Station Harda. A crime was registered under Section 302, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 506, Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 262/2000 at Police Station Harda on 2-8-2000 on a report lodged by Hajarilal son of Ghasram. There were 12 accused persons in the case. Jadu alias Rameshwar and Badri were arrested and the remaining accused persons were absconding. They are also related to Jadu. Jadu was having 28 criminal cases against him and is a hardened criminal. In order to put un-due pressure on the police so as to prevent the arrest Geeta Bai wife of Juharmal, Shakun Bai wife of Badri Prasad filed complaints before the M.P. Human Rights Commission on 9-10-2000 and 11-10-2000 to the effect that the petitioners restrained their labourers from harvesting the crop from their fields. They were taken to Police Station and were detained and they were released in the night. Beating was also given to one labourer; Radhe Shyam Korku. A notice was issued on 7-6-2001 by the M.P. Human Rights Commission to the petitioners to appear on 9-7-2001 and detailed explanation was required to be submitted prior to 3 days, of date, of hearing on 9-7-2001. It appears that a third person Sub-Inspector Shri Anil Tiwari, Station House Officer. Beating was also given to one labourer; Radhe Shyam Korku. A notice was issued on 7-6-2001 by the M.P. Human Rights Commission to the petitioners to appear on 9-7-2001 and detailed explanation was required to be submitted prior to 3 days, of date, of hearing on 9-7-2001. It appears that a third person Sub-Inspector Shri Anil Tiwari, Station House Officer. P.S. Harda on 9-7-2001 sent an application to the Assistant Registrar of M.P. Human Rights Commission mentioning that Shri S.S. Udhawat, Town Inspector was on leave and Shri Subhash Pawar, Sub-Inspector had gone to Harda on V.V.I.P. duty in connection with visit of Smt. Sonia Gandhi. Hence, both the officers were unable to keep themselves present. Hence, the next date be given. Extract of dak book of police station, Harda has been placed on record as Annexure-P/4, which bears No. 2567/2001 dated 9-7-2001. It appears that that this application dated 9-7- 2001, Annexure-P/3 was not filed before the Human Rights Commission till the time case was closed. The Human Rights Commission passed the impugned order Annexure-P/5. 3. Before passing the order Annexure-P/5 dated 27-7-2001, the M.P. Human Rights Commission got the enquiry conducted through Shri K.K. Dixit, Police Officer. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioners restrained the labourers from harvesting the field and the labourers were taken to the police station and unlawfully detained. Crop was damaged and number of labourers were allegedly detained. Notice under Section 16 of the Act was issued to the petitioners. Both the officers did not keep themselves present, nor filed any reply, which they were required to file prior to 3 days before 9-7-2001. The Human Rights Commission found that on 9-7-2001, no prayer was made for adjournment of the case, hence, the case was closed on 9-7-2001. Even after knowing the fact that the case was already closed for orders, no application was filed before the Human Rights Commission to reopen the case. Hence, the Human Rights Commission proceeded on the basis that they had nothing to say in the matter and discussed the evidence in detail and recommended the action against the Petitioner as mentioned hereinabove. 4. The respondent No.1, M.P. Human Rights Commission in its return contended that the application was not placed before it on 9-7-2001 and the case was closed. The Commission has right to get the matter investigated under Regulation 18. 4. The respondent No.1, M.P. Human Rights Commission in its return contended that the application was not placed before it on 9-7-2001 and the case was closed. The Commission has right to get the matter investigated under Regulation 18. It has discretion under Section 16 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to afford personal hearing as may deem fit. Respondent No. 1 submits that Smt. Geeta Bai and Ors. made a complaint to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission on 16-10-2000 that the petitioner along with another police man came to their village, abused and mis-behaved with them, crops were destroyed. On 11-10-2000, the petitioners came along with other police man and entered their fields and abused and insulted all the labourers and took them to police station.On investigation being conducted by Shri K.K. Dixit, an Inspector, it was found that the allegations made were correct and the Petitioners in order to put pressure for arrest of the accused persons prevented the complainant from harvesting their crops and forcibly took the labourers to the police station. The report was placed before the Commission on 30-5-2001. Prima facie case was found against the petitioners, hence, a notice was issued on 7-6-2001 for appearance on 9-7-2001. None of the inspectors cared to appear before the Commission and resultantly, the proceedings were closed and they were found guilty of violation of human rights. Commission submits that it has made recommendations in accordance with the provisions as contained in Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The enquiry was held in accordance with the Regulations. The petitioners were offered an opportunity of personal hearing as provided under Section 16 of the Act. They were asked to appear on 9-7-2001, but, none of them cared to appear nor did they make any arrangement of representation before the Commission on or before the above date. Thus there was no flaw or any legal infirmity in the enquiry made by the Commission or the recommendations made by it. There is limited scope of Judicial review and there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, after report was submitted, an application was filed on 20-8-2001 by the petitioners for affording an opportunity of hearing. The application was duly considered by the Commission. Even though, there is no provision for review of the order. Subsequently, after report was submitted, an application was filed on 20-8-2001 by the petitioners for affording an opportunity of hearing. The application was duly considered by the Commission. Even though, there is no provision for review of the order. The application was rejected. 5. The Commission further submits that after 9-7-2001, the petitioners did not bother to make any enquiry about the proceedings, that were being taken against them by the Commission, goes a long way to show their impertinence and callousness and none appeared before closure of the case. Application was also not filed before closure of the case. Various documents Annexure-R/1 to Annexure-R/6 are also placed on record. 6. Before entering into merit it may be seen that the Parliament has enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to provide-for the Constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The State Human Rights Commission has been constituted under Section 21 of the aforesaid, Act. 7. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (No. 10. of 1994), State Human Rights Commission have framed Regulations called the State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1996. Regulation 8 relates to the procedure for dealing with complaints. Regulation 8(6) provides that upon admission of a complaint, the Chairperson/State Commission shall direct whether the matter would be set down for enquiry by it or should be investigated into. Regulation 10 gives discretion to the Commission to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner or any other person on his behalf and such person or persons as in the opinion of the State Commission should be heard for appropriate disposal of the matter before it. 8. The Regulation 18 provides for constitution of an investigation team. Regulation 18 reads as under: 11. With respect to the case of Petitioner Shri Subhash Pawar in Writ Petition No. 4166/2001, cause of absence in the application dated 9-7-2001 was that he had gone to V.V.I.P. duty to Dhar in connection with the visit of Smt. Sonia Gandhi. 8. The Regulation 18 provides for constitution of an investigation team. Regulation 18 reads as under: 11. With respect to the case of Petitioner Shri Subhash Pawar in Writ Petition No. 4166/2001, cause of absence in the application dated 9-7-2001 was that he had gone to V.V.I.P. duty to Dhar in connection with the visit of Smt. Sonia Gandhi. In his affidavit filed before this Court, he submits that from Dhar he went to Indore and returned back to Harda on 13-7-2001. He further submits that his absence before the M.P. Human Rights Commission was not deliberate, but, because of unavoidable circumstances. 12. It is clear that Shri Subhash Pawar was given opportunity of hearing. He should have filed reply as required by the notice which was received by the petitioner one month before the date of hearing, but, neither the petitioner cared to file reply nor it appears that he made any efforts to attend the M.P. Human Rights Commission. It does not appear that he informed his superior officers that he was required to appear before the Commission on 9-7-2001. 18. Investigation Team. - The State Commission shall have its own team of investigation to be headed by a person not below the rank of Inspector General of Police appointed by it and such other categories of officers as the State Commission from time to time decides. The State Commission may in any given case appoint an appropriate number of outsiders to be associated with the investigation either as Investigators or Observers. It is provided under Regulation 8(11) that where investigation is undertaken by the team of the State Commission or by any other person under its discretion, the report shall be submitted within a week of its completion or such further time as the State Commission may allow. It is further provided that on receipt of the report, the State Commission on its own motion, or if moved in the matter, may direct enquiry to be carried by it and receive evidence in course of such enquiry. 9. Section 16 of the Act gives a discretion to the Commission to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person likely to be affected. Section 16 reads as under: 16. Persons likely to be prejudicially affectecl to be heard. Same day from Indore to Harda. 9. Section 16 of the Act gives a discretion to the Commission to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person likely to be affected. Section 16 reads as under: 16. Persons likely to be prejudicially affectecl to be heard. Same day from Indore to Harda. Thus, considering the conduct of Petitioners no interference in the proceedings of the M.P. Human Rights Commission and recommendations so made is called for. 14. It is clear that Section 16 of the Act was complied with, opportunity was afforded of personal hearing as required under Section 16 which was not availed by the petitioners due to their own fault. 15. The Human Rights are the supreme right, which are beyond the periphery of territories and are supposed to the respected and observed, but, were flagrantly violated. The Commission got the matter investigated by the Inspector. Investigation was done in proper manner in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence, no infirmity is found in the proceedings before the M.P. Human Rights Commission and its recommendations made as per Annexure-P/5. Scope of interference in writ jurisdiction in such matter is limited. 16. Resultantly, the writ petitions being without merits are dismissed.