JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. 1. Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the exhibits referred to hereinbelow shall be as obtaining in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020. 2. W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 is filed for direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and the State Police Chief, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to implement Ext.P2 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (‘Human Rights Commission’ for short) in H.R.M.P No. 10050/2017. W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent and W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 is filed by additional respondents 4 to 9, in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 (suo motu impleaded), challenging Ext.P2 order. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020, who was working as a Junior Clerk in a Co-operative Bank, was taken into custody by the policemen attached to Haripad police station on 16.10.2017, a hartal day and was subjected to brutal custodial torture and falsely implicated in Crime No. 1699/2017 by the then Circle Inspector of Police, the additional 3rd respondent, the Sub Inspector of police, the additional 4th respondent and the additional respondents 5 to 9, policemen. It is stated that, upon being subjected to custodial torture, the petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, and later treated at the Government Hospital, Mavelikkara and Government Ayurveda Hospital, Cheppad. Against the custodial torture, the petitioner's wife preferred the aforesaid complaint before the Human Rights Commission. 4. On receipt of the complaint, the Human Rights Commission called for a report from the designated Chief Investigating Officer of the Commission. Enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Statements of 11 witnesses were recorded. The investigating officer submitted a report wherein it is stated that though Crime No. 1699/2017 of Haripad Police Station was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested in the said case, there were contradictions in the records showing the arrest and the statements of the witnesses regarding the place of arrest. It is also reported that the treatment records show evidence regarding custodial torture meted out to the petitioner. It is also reported that the treatment records show evidence regarding custodial torture meted out to the petitioner. The order of the Commission recites that the copy of the report of the investigating officer was sent to the complainant and additional respondents. The additional respondents appeared before the Commission and filed their objection to the complaint and the report. They denied having assaulted the petitioner and stated that on the day of hartal, the petitioner broke the glass of a K.S.R.T.C bus and was arrested in connection with the incident. The Commission took evidence in the presence of the complainant and the additional respondents, and the additional respondents have cross-examined the complainant. PW1 to PW6 were examined before the Commission and Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked. The petitioner, who sustained injuries in the incident, was examined as PW2 and was cross-examined by the additional respondents. The additional respondents did not choose to cross-examine PWs 3 and 4. Other witnesses were also cross-examined by the additional respondents. 5. The Human Rights Commission found that the allegation that the petitioner was unlawfully arrested by the additional respondents and manhandled, is true and that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The Human Rights Commission directed the 1st respondent to give an amount of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty-five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and to recover the said amount from additional respondents 3 to 9. The State Police Chief was directed to register a case for the offences under the provisions of the Kerala Police Act and Indian Penal Code against the additional respondents and to transfer the investigation of Crime No. 1699/2017 of the Haripad Police Station to Alappuzha District Crime Branch and to take disciplinary action against the additional respondents. 6. Since no action was taken by respondents 1 and 2 on the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission in Ext.P2, the petitioner has filed W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 to implement Ext.P2. 7. W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020, challenging Ext.P2, contending that the Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a positive direction to pay compensation to the victim. According to the additional 3rd respondent, the power vested in the Human Rights Commission is only recommendatory, and the Human Rights Commission cannot issue positive orders. According to the additional 3rd respondent, the power vested in the Human Rights Commission is only recommendatory, and the Human Rights Commission cannot issue positive orders. It is further contended that there are no specific findings of any overt acts alleged against the police officers in Ext.P2, and the Human Rights Commission has entered only generalized findings. It is contended that the case before the Human Rights Commission was filed as a counterblast to the crime registered against the petitioner. It is also contended that the Human Rights Commission went wrong in appreciating the evidence adduced by the witnesses. 8. W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 is filed by the additional respondents 4 to 9 in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020, challenging Ext.P2 order on similar lines. 9. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the original records in H.R.M.P. No. 10050/2017 of the Human Rights Commission have been produced. 10. After the perusal of the original records produced before this Court by the Human Rights Commission, learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent submitted that, as per the records, there was no cross-examination of witness Nos. 3 and 4 and no notice was issued by the Human Rights Commission to the additional 3rd respondent when PWs 3 and 4 were examined on 27.02.2019 and that the Ayurveda doctor who treated the victim has not explicitly pointed out any injuries, and the date of examination is not mentioned in the record of proceedings. Accordingly, the additional 3rd respondent, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020, sought time to file an affidavit based on the materials in the original files produced and the matter was adjourned to 17.11.2022. 11. Later, an application was moved to amend the pleadings in W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 incorporating the above averments and also for incorporating a prayer to declare clause 30 of the Kerala Human Rights Commission [procedural] Rules, 2001 as ultra vires the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. By order dated 01.02.2023, we permitted raising of additional grounds, but refused to grant the additional relief of declaration as prayed for and the writ petitions were heard. 12. We have heard Sri. A. Rajasimhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020, Sri. By order dated 01.02.2023, we permitted raising of additional grounds, but refused to grant the additional relief of declaration as prayed for and the writ petitions were heard. 12. We have heard Sri. A. Rajasimhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020, Sri. P. Sreekumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020, Smt. Bhavana, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 and Sri. K.P. Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the records in H.R.M.P. No. 10050/2017. 13. The Human Rights Commission, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was unreasonably arrested by the Police and tortured in Police custody. The complaint was got enquired through the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses and after verifying the records, submitted a report before the Commission. The copy of the report of the investigating officer was sent to the complainant and the additional respondents. The additional respondents appeared before the Commission and filed their objections to the complaint as well as the report. The additional respondents had cross-examined the complainant and the witnesses. 14. The learned counsel for the additional respondent submitted that as per the records, there was no cross-examination of witness Nos.3 and 4. On a perusal of the records, we find that, the said witnesses had filed proof affidavit and it has been recorded in the depositions of the said witnesses that there is no cross-examination by the respondents. It has to be noted that the additional respondents had already entered appearance before the Commission and cross-examined the complainant and the petitioner, PWs 1 and 2 on 30.01.2019 and 12.02.2019 respectively. They had also cross examined PWs 5 and 6 on 03.06.2019. They have not filed any application to recall PWs 3 and 4 who were examined on 27.02.2019. Further, the enquiry into complaints of violation of human rights by the Human Rights Commission under Section 17 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is not akin to the trial in criminal cases. The Human Rights Commission while enquiring into complaints of violation of human rights is not exercising adversarial jurisdiction. Further, the enquiry into complaints of violation of human rights by the Human Rights Commission under Section 17 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is not akin to the trial in criminal cases. The Human Rights Commission while enquiring into complaints of violation of human rights is not exercising adversarial jurisdiction. The Human Rights Commission has therefore to follow the procedure for enquiry as in an inquisitorial system and not as in an adversarial litigation. The Human Rights Commission called for report from its investigation team and has discussed the evidence adduced in the case and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was taken into custody without complying with the procedures to be followed at the time of arrest and that he was manhandled at the Police Station, which amounts to violation of his human rights. There is no merit in the contention of the additional respondents that the findings are generalised and not specific. The Human Rights Commission has, on the basis of materials before it, found that there is violation of human rights of the petitioner. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings in Ext.P2 order. 15. Sri.P.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent further contends that, Ext.P2 order passed by the individual member of the Human Rights Commission is not sustainable. According to Sri.Sreekumar, Section 2(n) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines 'State Commission' to mean State Human Rights Commission constituted under Section 21 and Section 21 provides for constitution of the State Commission with a Chairperson and two members and therefore, Ext.P2 order passed by one of the members of the Commission is not legally valid. According to the learned counsel, the scheme of the Act contemplates exercise of powers conferred by the Act by the 'State Commission' and not by individual members. Regulation 2(i) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 provides that 'Division Bench' means a Bench consisting of the Chairperson and one member as may be constituted by the Chairperson. According to the learned counsel, the scheme of the Act contemplates exercise of powers conferred by the Act by the 'State Commission' and not by individual members. Regulation 2(i) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 provides that 'Division Bench' means a Bench consisting of the Chairperson and one member as may be constituted by the Chairperson. Regulation 30 deals with constitution of Benches and Clause (a) thereof provides that subject to such general or special orders as may be issued by the Chairperson, all complaints shall be dealt with by a Single Bench of the Commission, however the Bench dealing with a particular complaint, having due regard to the nature of the issue involved is of the opinion that the case should be considered by a Division Bench/Full Bench, the Single Bench may refer the case to the Chairperson, who may constitute a Division Bench or Full Bench, as the case may be, and refer the case to the Bench so constituted. Since Regulation 30(a) provides that all complaints shall ordinarily be dealt with by a Single Bench of the Commission, we are of the view that, there is no irregularity in Ext.P2 order passed by the Single Bench of the Commission. A Similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Thalassery Municipality vs. Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Others, 2020 (2) KLT 726 in which one of us (S. Manikumar, CJ) was a member and this Court held as follows: “22. A conjoint reading of S.10 read with S.40B of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers the National Human Rights Commission to frame regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed by the National Commission under subsection (2) of S.10. Similarly, Regulation 30 of the Kerala State Human Rights (Procedure) Regulations, 2001, empowers the Chairperson to constitute Benches. Complaints can be dealt with by a Single Bench of the Commission. If, however, the Bench dealing a particular complaint, having due regard to the nature of the issue involved is of the opinion that, the case should be considered by a Division Bench / Full Bench: the Single Bench may refer the case to the Chairperson who may constitute a Division Bench of Full Bench, as the case may be, and refer the case to the Bench so constituted. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner to the contrary that a Single Member of the Commission cannot constitute a Bench is erroneous and untenable.” We, therefore, reject the contention of Sri.Sreekumar that Ext.P2 order passed by the individual member of the Human Rights Commission is not sustainable. 16. According to the additional respondents, the Human Rights Commission overstepped its authority in issuing positive direction to pay compensation to the victim and that the power vested on the Commission is only recommendatory and no positive orders could be issued by the Commission. The operative portion of Ext.P2 translated from vernacular and produced in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 reads thus: “It is unjust to deny compensation for the sole reason that there is nothing in evidence to show the exact amount to be awarded as compensation. Hence the Secretary of the Home Department is directed to give an amount of Rs.35,000/-as compensation to the complainant, who is the wife of PW2 Arun, who met with torture at the hands of the Police and that the Secretary, Home Department shall recover the said amount from respondents 1 to 7. The State Police Chief is directed to register case for the offences under the provisions of the Kerala Police Act and Indian Penal Code against the respondents, who unlawfully arrested PW2 and subjected him to custodial torture. The State Police Chief is further directed to transfer the investigation of Crime No. 1699/2017 of the Haripad Police Station to Alappuzha District Crime Branch, if no final report in the case is submitted before the Court concerned. The State Police Chief is further directed to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 1 to 7, who were acted in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Police Act. The copy of the order has to be sent to the complainant, respondents, State Police Chief and the Secretary to Home Department.” 17. Section 18(a) (i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides that, where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abatement thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant as the Commission may consider necessary. Ext.P2 order passed by the Human Rights Commission after enquiry under Section 17 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 can only be treated as recommendatory. The word used by the Human Rights Commission while passing Ext. P2 is.....From the language and terms in which Ext. P2 is passed, we are of the view that Ext. P2 is passed in terms of Section 18 (a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However, as regards recommendation to the concerned Government or Authority to make payment of compensation, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Another vs. Human Rights Commission and Others, 2015 (1) KHC 391 : 2015 (1) KLT 239 held that, when the Human Rights Commission recommends to the concerned Government or Authority to make payment of compensation or damages, it is with the intent to make payment by the said authority. This Court held as follows: “15. When the Commission has specific power under S.18(a)(i) that it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Commission under S.18(a)(i) cannot direct payment of compensation. When the Commission recommends to the concerned Government or Authority to make payment of compensation or damages, it is with the intend to make payment by the said authority. The use of the word “recommend” in S.18(a)(i) does not take away the effectiveness or competency of the order for issuing direction for payment of compensation.” 18. The said judgment was followed by us in Kottayam Municipality vs. The Chairperson, the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, 2023 (2) KHC 78 wherein it was held that the Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation for violation of human rights. We, thus, do not accept the submission that there is lack of jurisdiction for the Commission in directing payment of compensation. It is to be noted that the 1st respondent has not chosen to challenge the order of the Human Rights Commission to pay compensation. 19. We find no merit in the contentions of the additional respondents raised in W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 and dismiss the said writ petitions. 20. It is to be noted that the 1st respondent has not chosen to challenge the order of the Human Rights Commission to pay compensation. 19. We find no merit in the contentions of the additional respondents raised in W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 and dismiss the said writ petitions. 20. We direct the 1st respondent in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 to implement Ext.P2 order, so far as it relates to payment of compensation, within a period of two months from today. With regard to other recommendations of the Human Rights Commission in Ext. P2, respondents 1 and 2 shall act in terms of Section 18 (e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 is allowed to the said extent.