JUDGMENT : S.Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner is a regular commuter of Indian Railways, used to travel regularly using season ticket from Koyilandy to Kozhikode for the past 36 years for eking out his livelihood by conducting a small petty shop in Kozhikode. On 21.4.2018, when the petitioner reached Koyilandy Railway Station, he felt acute colic pain and was in dire need of using the toilet. Though he approached the Station Master, the 3rd respondent, and requested for handing over the key of the toilet, she turned a deaf ear towards the request of the petitioner and only after half an hour, the Station Master acceded to the request of the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by the inhuman attitude of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has given a complaint before the Superintendent, Kozhikode Railway Station. Since no action was taken on the above complaint, the petitioner filed another complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. After receiving a report from the Senior Divisional Operations Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad, the Human Rights Commission vide order in HRMP No.8960/2018/KKD dated 17.7.2019, has closed the complaint as hereunder: “The allegation is against the Railway Officer. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager, Southern Railway, Palaghat filed report denying the allegation. No action can be taken against the Officer of Central Government as per the provision of Protection of Human Rights Act. Complaint closed.” 3. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed inter alia on the following grounds: “A. The 2nd respondent has gone seriously wrong in closing the matter holding that they have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a railway employee. The 2nd respondent ought to have found that since the incident happened is an actionable wrong within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission, they have got ample power and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Section 21 of the Act empowers the 3 rd respondent to deal with matters relatable to the entries in List II and III of the Constitution of India. Actionable wrongs are included as entry 8 to List III of the Constitution and as such the reasoning of the 3rd respondent is illegal and unsustainable. B. The 2nd respondent ought to have found that since the grievance ventilated by the petitioner is bonafide and genuine, it was only just and proper to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. B. The 2nd respondent ought to have found that since the grievance ventilated by the petitioner is bonafide and genuine, it was only just and proper to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. After entertaining the complaint as early as in 28.4.2018 and after obtaining a report from the 2nd respondent regarding the incident, it was improper and illegal on the part of the 2nd respondent to close the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. Even the 1 st respondent did not have a case that he was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission. C. The 2nd respondent has failed to consider the fact that the Entry 6 to List III of the Constitution empowers the State Government to deal with matters concerning public health and sanitation. The issue involved in the present case also is concerning public health and sanitation and as such matter can be dealt with by the State Commission. D. The 2nd respondent ought to have found that Ext.P6 report revealed the fact that the incident stated by the petitioner was true and correct. As per the report, the 3rd respondent has alleged that she was abused by the petitioner and was subjected to unmannerly behaviour. However, absolutely no evidence was forthcoming on the part of the 3rd respondent substantiating her contention. E. The impugned order is passed in total violation of the basic principles of natural justice and on that ground alone the same is liable to be set aside. F. Exhibit P8 order is violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The very purpose of the enactment of Protection of Human Rights Act is to preserve and protect the basic human rights and the authority constituted under the Act should always function to achieve the avowed object of the Act and not to defeat its very purpose. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent has shirked of its responsibility on flimsy grounds, resulting in miscarriage of justice.” 4. Heard Mr.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who made submissions on the above grounds. Also heard W.P.(C) No.20107 of 2020 5 Mr.P.Sanjay, learned standing counsel for the Railways (respondent Nos.1 and 3) and Mr.A.Dinesh Rao, learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (respondent No.2). 5. Heard Mr.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who made submissions on the above grounds. Also heard W.P.(C) No.20107 of 2020 5 Mr.P.Sanjay, learned standing counsel for the Railways (respondent Nos.1 and 3) and Mr.A.Dinesh Rao, learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (respondent No.2). 5. The 3rd respondent is a public servant within the meaning assigned under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint has been preferred to the State Human Rights Commission. As per Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. Reading of the above indicates that an aggrieved person can prefer a complaint either before the National Commission or before the State Commission, as the case may be. The Section only indicates that there shall not be any simultaneous prosecution of a complaint, if any, preferred by the aggrieved person in two different forums. 6. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission ought to have considered as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for conducting an inquiry. Reason for rejecting the complaint that no action can be taken against the officer of the Central Government, is not correct in view of Section 17 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. More so, respondent No.3 is a Station Master working in Railway and not under Central Government as observed by the Human Rights Commission. Reason for rejecting the complaint that no action can be taken against the officer of the Central Government, is not correct in view of Section 17 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. More so, respondent No.3 is a Station Master working in Railway and not under Central Government as observed by the Human Rights Commission. That apart, as per Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001, the Commission may dismiss inlimine complaints of the following nature: (a) Illegible; (b) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; (c) trivial or frivolous; (d) barred under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 36 of the Act; (e) allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant; (f) issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute; (g) allegations do not raise any violation of human rights; (h) If the matter raised is subjudice before a Court or Tribunal; (i) the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission; (j) Where the complaint is only a copy of the petition addressed to some other authority; (k) Where the petition is not signed or where the original petition is not sent to the Commission; (l) Where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground. Kerala State Human Rights Commission has also not addressed as to whether the complaint falls under any of the above. For the above said reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No.8960/2018/KKD dated 17.7.2019. The matter is remitted back to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission for appropriate action, in accordance with law. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.