HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by learned Chairperson of State Human Right Commission, Bihar, Patna by which and whereunder the learned State Human Right Commission, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission.”) directed the respondent no. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- to respondent no. 3 on account of death of her husband. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is Government of India undertaking and had taken the contract of anti-erosion work of river Ganga. In course of above stated work, petitioner no. 1 employed Avantika-GHRA (J.V.) of Hyderabad to execute the work on Raghopur-Kajikori in Naugachia Division. Petitioner no. 2 was site engineer of the aforesaid project. The above stated Avantika-GHRA (J.V.) of Hyderabad employed a local contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh to complete the anti-erosion work on the bank of Ganges. The above stated petty contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh employed the husband of respondent no. 3 in the above stated work but unfortunately, on 08.05.2009 while husband of respondent no. 3 was engaged in the work of transporting sand and stone for the above stated company, he was drowned in the river Ganga. Thereafter, on 06.08.2009 Kharik P.S. Case No. 136/2009 for the offences under Sections 304, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(x) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. Furthermore, on 10.08.2009, the respondent no. 3 gave a petition to Hon’ble Chief Minister of State of Bihar mentioning this fact that while her husband was engaged in anti-erosion work of river Ganga by petitioner no. 1, he drowned in the river Ganga but no compensation was paid to her. The aforesaid petition was sent to the State Commission and on the above stated petition, the State Commission took cognizance of the matter. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner no. 1 and reply to show cause was submitted by the petitioner no. 1 before the State Commission. The State Commission having conducted an enquiry and having heard the parties passed the impugned order in the manner as stated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State Commission had got no power to entertain the complaint because there was no violation of human rights. 1 before the State Commission. The State Commission having conducted an enquiry and having heard the parties passed the impugned order in the manner as stated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State Commission had got no power to entertain the complaint because there was no violation of human rights. He further submitted that admittedly, Kharik P.S. Case No. 136/2009 was registered in respect of death of husband of respondent no. 3 and the aforesaid criminal case was pending at the time of passing impugned order but the State Commission took cognizance of the complaint of respondent no. 3 without taking any approval from the concerned court. He further submitted that the State Commission may send his recommendation, if the human rights are violated by the State or the agencies of the State and the State Commission had no power to issue direction to the petitioners for making payment to respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that State Commission did not make proper enquiry in respect of complaint of respondent no. 3 and not only this but also wrongly observed about so-called admission of the petitioners in the impugned order. He also submitted that according to case of the complainant itself, the deceased was working under employment of petty contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh and as a matter of fact, the deceased was never employed by petitioner no. 1 nor petitioner no. 1 had any control over the deceased and, therefore, the State Commission committed error in passing the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the above stated submissions arguing that petitioners participated in the proceeding before the State Commission and they never raised the point of jurisdiction before the State Commission and, therefore, they cannot raise the issue of jurisdiction of State Commission before this court. In support of his contention, he referred a decision reported in 1977 PLJR, 623 in which full Bench of this court held that if objection regarding jurisdiction of the court is not raised at first instance, the same cannot be raised at later stage. In support of his contention, he referred a decision reported in 1977 PLJR, 623 in which full Bench of this court held that if objection regarding jurisdiction of the court is not raised at first instance, the same cannot be raised at later stage. He also cited a decision reported in 2013(4) PLJR, 456(SC) but in my view, the judgment reported in 2013(4) PLJR 456(SC) is not applicable in the facts of the present case because in that case it has been held by the Apex Court that no person can take the benefit of its own mistake instituting the suit in court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in course of proceeding, the petitioners admitted the accidental death of husband of respondent no. 3 and also agreed to make payment of compensation and the State Commission only recommended for payment of compensation on the basis of above stated admission. 6. The National Human Rights Commission was set up under the provision of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for promotion and better protection of human rights and the State Human Rights Commission, Bihar, Patna has also been constituted under the above stated Act. The “Human Rights” has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act and according to the aforesaid Section 2 (d) of the Act, the “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.” The functions and powers of the Commission has been defined in Section 12 of the above stated Act which says as follows:— 12. Functions of the Commission.— The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:– (a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any Court, into complaint of- (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant; (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such Court; (c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government; (d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation; (e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures; (f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation; (g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights; (h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means; (i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions working in the field of human rights; (j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights. Section 13 of the Act deals with powers relating to enquiries. The above stated section runs as follows :– 13. Section 13 of the Act deals with powers relating to enquiries. The above stated section runs as follows :– 13. Powers relating to inquiries.–(1) The Commission shall, while inquiring into complaints under this Act, have all the powers of a civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:– (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath; (b) discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Commission shall have power to require any person, subject to any privilege which may be claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such points or matters as, in the opinion of the commission, may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject-matter of the inquiry and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such information within the meaning of Section 176 and Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (3) The Commission or any other officer, not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer, specially authorized in this behalf by the Commission may enter any building or place where the Commission has reason to believe that any document relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry may be found, and may seize any such document or take extracts or copies therefrom subject to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), insofar as it may be applicable. (4) The Commission shall be deemed to be a civil Court and when any offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of the Commission, the Commission may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case has been forwarded to him under section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (5) Every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code, and the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) Where the Commission considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, transfer any complaint filed or pending before it to the State Commission of the State from which the complaint arises, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that no such complaint shall be transferred unless the same is one respecting which the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the same. (7) Every complaint transferred under sub-section (6) shall be dealt with and disposed of by the State Commission as if it were a complaint initially filed before it. Similarly, Section 14 of the Act deals with power of investigation and the said section runs as follows :— Investigation.—(1) The Commission may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation pertaining to the inquiry, utilize the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Central Government or any State Government with the concurrence of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. (2) For the purpose of investigating into any matter pertaining to the inquiry, any officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) may, subject to the direction and control of the Commission,– (a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him; (b) require the discovery and production of any document; and (c) requisition any public record or copy thereof from any office. (3) The provisions of section 15 shall apply in relation to any statement made by a person before any officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to any statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission. (4) The officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the enquiry and submit a report thereon to the Commission within such period as may be specified by the Commission in this behalf. (5) The Commission shall satisfy itself about the correctness of the facts stated and the conclusion, if any, arrived at in the report submitted to it under sub-section (4) and for this purpose the commission may make such inquiry (including the examination of the person or persons who conducted or assisted in the investigation) as it thinks fit. Section 17 of the Act runs as follows :— 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 organization 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, on receipt of information or report, the Commission is satisfied either that 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. Section 18 of the Act runs as follows :— [18. Section 18 of the Act runs as follows :— [18. Step during and after inquiry.— The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:- (a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority- (i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons; (iii) to take such further action as it may think fit; (b) approach the Supreme Court or the High court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary; (c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative; (e) 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; (f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry repot 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.] Section 29 of the Act says that the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 shall apply to a State Commission and shall have effect, subject to the following modifications, namely:— (a) references to “Commission” shall be construed as references to “State Commission”; (b) in section 10, in sub-section (3), for the word “Secretary-General”, the word “Secretary” shall be substituted; (c) in section 12, clause (f) shall be omitted; (d) in section 17, in clause (i), the words “Central Government or any” shall be omitted. 7. From bare perusal of the above stated provisions, it would appear that the State Commission has got power to entertain a complaint of violation of human rights or abetment thereof and if act complained off is entertained by the State Commission, the State Commission shall have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Furthermore, the State Commission may pass an order for investigation of the complaint or may enquire himself to the act complained off. It would also appear from the above stated provisions that the State Commission may recommend to the concerned government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the State Commission may consider necessary. 8. Now, averting to the facts of the present case, it is relevant to mention here that admittedly, contract of anti erosion work of river Ganga was originally allotted to petitioner no. 1 who employed Avantika Group of Hyderabad to execute the above stated work. Subsequently, the aforesaid Avantika Group employed a local contractor who employed the husband of respondent no. 3. It is also an admitted position that Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. is an undertaking of Govt. of India and, therefore, it is apparent that the aforesaid Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. was under control of Govt. of India and so, according to Article 12 of Constitution of India, the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. comes under the definition of the State. It is also an admitted position that the respondent no. 3 lodged criminal case i.e. Kharik P.S. Case No. 136/2009 on 06.08.2009 in respect of death of her husband and the aforesaid case was pending at the time of passing impugned order but the aforesaid case was lodged for criminal act of petitioner no. 2 and the said case was not lodged for compensation in respect of death of husband of respondent no. 3. Therefore, in my view, even if the aforesaid court’s proceeding was pending at the time of passing impugned order, there was no necessity to State Commission to take approval of the concerned court because the issue in question before the State Commission as well as issue in question before the criminal court were quiet different. 9. 3. Therefore, in my view, even if the aforesaid court’s proceeding was pending at the time of passing impugned order, there was no necessity to State Commission to take approval of the concerned court because the issue in question before the State Commission as well as issue in question before the criminal court were quiet different. 9. Now the question arises as to whether there was any violation of human rights or not because admittedly, the State Commission gets jurisdiction to entertain any complaint, if there is any violation of human rights. The word “Human Rights” has been defined in Section 2 (d) and the aforesaid definition identifies the right of life of an individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by the Courts in India as human right. It is not in dispute that the State is bound to protect the life of every citizen and the life of a person cannot be taken away except by established procedure of the law. Article 21 of Constitution of India says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 42 of Constitution of India which relates to directive principles of State policy says that State shall make provision for securing just and human condition of work and for maternity relief. Although, the directive principles of State policy cannot be enforced such as fundamental rights but the directive principles of State policy cast a duty upon the State to make law in respect of the aforesaid policies. In the present case, it is the case of respondent no. 3 that her husband was forced to work in dangerous conditions and the aforesaid fact has not been denied by the petitioners either before this court or before the State Commission. The husband of respondent no. 3 was engaged in transporting stone and sand from river Ganga and there is nothing before this court to take note of this fact that before compelling the husband of respondent no. 3 to do the aforesaid work, any proper arrangement had been made by the petitioners so that life of workers could be saved. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, it is apparent that there was complete violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3 to do the aforesaid work, any proper arrangement had been made by the petitioners so that life of workers could be saved. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, it is apparent that there was complete violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an objection that the State Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of respondent no. 3 but admittedly, the aforesaid plea was never raised by the petitioners before the State Commission and on contrary, they participated in the proceeding of State Commission and for the first time, petitioners have raised this objection. Moreover, Section 12 (a) (i) of the Act prescribes that the State Commission may enquire into the complaint of violation of Human Rights or abetment thereof and as I have already stated that there was violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India coupled with Article 42 of the Constitution of India, in my view, the State Commission had got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of respondent no. 3. 10. No doubt, the State Commission has only power of recommendation but the impugned order reveals that the State Commission has only recommended for making payment of compensation to the respondent no. 3 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction. 11. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order that in course of hearing, petitioners admitted that husband of respondent no. 3 died while working on the river and it is an admitted position that petty contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh was entrusted to execute the work by the Avantika Group and the aforesaid Avantika Group was entrusted to execute the work by petitioner no. 1. It is also an admitted position that at the time of his death, the deceased was working under petty contractor, Niranjan Singh and, therefore, petitioner no. 1 cannot take this stand that the deceased was not his employee rather in my view, petitioner no. 1 is responsible for making the payment of compensation on the theory of vicarious liability. The impugned order further reveals that the petitioners agreed before the State Commission to make payment of compensation but they were ready to make payment of meagre amount and the State Commission calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of principles laid down in Minimum Wages Act. 12. The impugned order further reveals that the petitioners agreed before the State Commission to make payment of compensation but they were ready to make payment of meagre amount and the State Commission calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of principles laid down in Minimum Wages Act. 12. It is well settled principle of law that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only interfere into the findings of Courts/Tribunals, if the findings are perverse or in complete violation of established procedure of the law but in this case, there is nothing to show that the findings of Commission are perverse or against the established procedure of law. Therefore, in my view, at this stage, the petitioners cannot raise this point that they had never agreed before the State Commission to make payment of compensation. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that this writ petition does not have any merit and, accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. ?