JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 9 on the basis of petitioner''s representation dated 07.02.2015 and 19.03.2015 and consequently directing the respondents 4 to 9 to pay compensation of sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to recover the same from respondents 4 to 9.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is seeking for a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 9 on the basis of the petitioner''s representations dated 07.02.2015 and 19.03.2015, to direct the respondents 4 to 9 to pay compensation of sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to recover the same from respondents 4 to 9. 2. Heard Mr.C.Jegannathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.OM.Prakash, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 10 and Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 2 and 3. 3. Mr.C.Jegannathan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner a District Secretary of Consumer Public Protection Council. dispute arose with regard to erection of telephone tower between the petitioner and the fifth respondent and hence, he had lodged a complaint with the higher officials. The police officers from various quarters were trying to pressurize the petitioner for amicably settling the issue by withdrawing the complaint against the fifth respondent. As the petitioner did not yield, the respondents 4 to 9 have tried to interfere with the lorry booking office and took forcibly some loadmen and had assaulted them. Thereafter, a false complaint in Crime No.691 of 2014 wa registered by the 7th respondent against the petitioner and his brother-in-law. In custody, the petitioner and his brother-in-law were ill-treated and physically abused. Hence, he had forwarded the complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu on 07.02.2015. The complaint made by the petitioner to the State Human Rights Commission has been assigned with Case No.1155 of 2015/C2, by order dated 25.03.2015, the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu had passed the order forwarding the complaint of the petitioner to the third respondent herein for necessary action. The complaint made by the petitioner to the State Human Rights Commission has been assigned with Case No.1155 of 2015/C2, by order dated 25.03.2015, the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu had passed the order forwarding the complaint of the petitioner to the third respondent herein for necessary action. He would further submit that since no further action has been initiated, the petitioner had approached this Court with this instant writ petition. 4. Contesting the claim of the petitioner, the third respondent has filed a counter. 5. Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the seventh respondent, who is the Sub Inspector of Police Bazzar Police Station, Virudhunagar, was making night rounds and came across a gathering of people in Sivakasi Road. On enquiry, it was found that they belong to Kerala and came by lorry. During such enquiry, the petitioner accompanied by his relative had come to the spot and abused the seventh respondent and other police officers. The petitioner and his relative were found to be under intoxication and therefore, they were taken to custody and a case in Crime No.691 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506 ii) IPC was registered and they had been produced before the appropriate Judicial Magistrate Court. 6. The allegations that have been made by the petitioner are all wholly false and only to wriggle out of the criminal case filed against the petitioner, he has made such a false claim, as if there was police excesses. He would further submit that the petitioner under the cloth of being the Secretary of the Consumer Public Protection Council has been trying to interfere with the lawful duty of the police in conducting checks on the lorries. 7. I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side. 8. Various allegations have been made by the petitioner as well as the respondents against each other. But what remains the fact is that the petitioner seems to have approached the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu have registered a case in case No.1155 of 2015/C2. But without taking any further action, the State Human Rights Commission has forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the third respondent herein for necessary action. But without taking any further action, the State Human Rights Commission has forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the third respondent herein for necessary action. This procedure, according to this Court, is not contemplated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 or Rules. When a complaint is received by the State Human Rights Commission, procedures have been well laid in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Regulations made thereunder. 9. Hence, without adverting to the merits of the contesting averments made in this writ petition, the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu is directed to procee further as per the procedures contemplated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Regulations made thereunder in Case No.1155 of 2015/C2 and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.