Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1241 (JHR)

Jai Karn Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12/16.04.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Chairman, State Commission for Women, Jharkhand and prays for a direction upon the respondents-State not to act upon the impugned order. 3. The orders have been challenged primarily on the ground that the State Commission for Women is created under relevant statute i.e. the Jharkhand State Women Commission Act, 2005 which do not assign the Commission with an adjudicatory role by issuing direction in the nature of commands and further to ensure implementation of its orders in the nature of decree like order passed by duly constituted court of law. The relevant provision conferring upon the power to the commission as contained in Chapter-III Section 10 are quoted hereinbelow:- “10 (1) (Ch) rajya me mahilayo ke virudh ho rahe utpidan, yatnao aur atyacharo duara mahilayo se sambandhit vidhi aur vidhic upayo ke u anghan ke sabhi mamlo ko saksham pradhikariyo sa samaksh prastutkarna” 4. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions under the Act of 2005 and the objects of the Act including other provisions, it is apparent that the Women Commission has been constituted as a recommendatory body. Under the provisions of the Jharkhand State Commission For Women Act, 2005 in its Chapter-III Section 10 to make recommendations in respect of such cases of torture, violation and atrocities against the women to the relevant statutory authority so as to suggest legal measures. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on complaint of the private respondent before Commission on which the Case no. 72 was initiated, the Chairperson of the Commission has proceeded to issue direction as contained in para-4 of the impugned order which are in the nature of commands or directions inter alia directing the petitioner and others to allow proper access to the private respondents to the petitioner's house and also directing them to refrain from indulging in domestic violence against petitioner/private respondent herein. The relevant portion of para-4 are quoted herein below:- “4 (1) since the petitioner Madhuri Bharad wajandher immediate family members had been staying at the Mackluskiganj house since November 2003, and since for the past two and a half months her father-in-law, mother-in-law and youngest brother-in-law are staying in that house, and the house is still joint family property, it obviously becomes the petitioner's “Sasural”where she has every right to stay being the eldest daughter-in-law. She had been forced to leave the house due to domestic violence which will now attract theprovisions of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Os Jaikarn Sinha, Sumitra Bharadwaj and Sundaram Bharadwaj are directed not to interfere but to a ow proper access to the petitioner alongwith here immediate family to that house. The Ops will refrain from any kind of domestic violence against the petitioner. They will ensure that she is not troubled in any manner when she comes to her house hold goods which she had left in that house. If the Ops fail to provide her proper access to that house as per directions of the Commission, they wil be liable for prosecution under therelevantSectionsoftheProtectionofWomenfrom DomesticViolenceAct,2005.” 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the private respondents submits that from mere perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order, it would appear that the Commission has only made the recommendations to the private respondent to move to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gumla for deciding the case of 580 of 2006 which was pending before him along with a copy of the order of the Commission, in view of the perceived threat and insecurity being felt by the petitioner/the private respondent herein from the opposite parties. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent also does not dispute the legal preposition in view of the provisions of Act, 2005 referred hereinabove that the Commission does not play adjudicatory role in the nature of court of law to issue direction upon the concerned parties to act or forbear in a particular manner. He is of the considered opinion that the Commission has a recommendatory role and by passing the impugned order the Commission has only made a recommendation. 7. He is of the considered opinion that the Commission has a recommendatory role and by passing the impugned order the Commission has only made a recommendation. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and noticed the provisions of the Act including the impugned order, it becomes clear that while making certain observations in para-4 of the impugned order, the learned Commission has gone beyond its recommendatory role under the Act under which it is created and issued directions in the nature of command by a court of law which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As per the mandate of the various provisions of the Act, 2005 including Chapter-III Section 10 also, it appears that the Commission has a role to make a recommendation to the relevant statutory body/authorities when it come across torture, violence and atrocities against women. 8. In that view of the matter, it is, therefore, declared that the order contained in para-4 are mere innocuous observations which do not have a force of a direction or declaration by a court of law and cannot be executed as such by any of the respondent-State authority. However, the private respondent has liberty to approach the competent authority/statutory body under the relevant Acts on being aggrieved by any action on the part of the persons by whom she is affected with the recommendation of the Commission. 9. In that view of the matter, the operative portion of the impugned order contained at para-4 is only a recommendation in favour of the private respondent and nothing more than that. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion recorded hereinabove, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.