ORDER : (Order of the Court was made by S. M. Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu in SHRC Case Nos.3111/22/13/2022, 5205/22/14/2022 and 5310/22/14/2022/HC3, dated 07.07.2023. 2. The order impugned has been passed by a Single Member of the State Human Rights Commission. 3. The petitioner states that he is an active politician for more than 35 years and previously held the post of Member of Legislative Assembly for five- times from Royapuram Constituency; three-time Minister and one time Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. As a Minister, he handled the portfolios of Finance, Law and Justice, Fisheries, Electricity Board, Information Technology, Backward Classes, Forest, Ex-service men, Welfare, etc. He was GST Council Member for four years and attended GST Council Meeting 31 times on behalf of Tamil Nadu Government. He is holding the posts as Organizing Secretary, Member-Steering Committee, Member-Legal Advisory Committee, Secretary- North Chennai District in AIADMK Party. 4. The petitioner filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission stating that a false complaint was lodged by Mr.R.Naresh in H3, Tondiarpet Police Station against him and AIADMK Party cadres and for which, a case was registered against him under Sections 506(ii), 147, 148, 294(b), 153, 355, 323, 324 IPC Section 4 AA(1a), 4AA(4) of TN Open places (Prevention of disfigurement) Act, Section 66(e) IT Act in Crime No.81/2022 and U/s. 188, 269, 270 IPC and Section 41(6) CP Act & Section 7(1) (a) CLA Act in Crime No.112/2022. 5. In pursuance of the criminal case, on 21.02.2022, about 8.00 p.m., 40 policemen headed by Deputy Commissioner Mr.Sundara Vadhanam barged into his house without his permission and without giving any notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when he was about to have his dinner along with his wife and grandchildren. The police authorities said that the petitioner was under arrest and he should be taken to police van immediately, without explaining the relevant grounds for arrest and without providing any information. The petitioner made a request for lawyer assistance, which was refused. He requested to provide details about the criminal case and further provided information however, he was not allowed to speak and was manhandled. Finally, he requested police authorities to allow him to change his clothes and take regular night medications before he accompanies the police authorities. The said request was also denied. 6. He requested to provide details about the criminal case and further provided information however, he was not allowed to speak and was manhandled. Finally, he requested police authorities to allow him to change his clothes and take regular night medications before he accompanies the police authorities. The said request was also denied. 6. The petitioner states that he was taken into police van and told that he would be taken to a police station however, he was taken in a secluded place, particulars of which, he did not know and was kept there for about 4 hours. The police authorities had snatched his mobile phone and he was not allowed to contact any one of his family members or his lawyers. At around 12.30 a.m., on 22.02.2022, he was taken to Egmore, Metropolitan Court Complex, where he th was produced before the learned 16 Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town Court. The petitioner informed the learned Magistrate that he was not informed about the crime by the police authorities at the time of arrest and he was treated in inhuman way and he was not informed about the reasons for his arrest. He further pleaded that it was a political vendetta. Thereafter, he was remanded by the learned Magistrate. While remanding the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ordered to provide first class in prison, on the ground that he was a former MLA, Minister, Speaker and Income Tax Assessee, but the petitioner was taken to Poonamallee Sub Jail in order to avoid first class accommodation as ordered by the learned Magistrate. 7. The petitioner states that he reached prison by 3.30 a.m., on 22.02.2022, till then, he was not provided with food or his regular night medications. He spent two days in prison in unclean room with mosquito bites. The petitioner narrates subsequent events in his complaint and made a submission before the State Human Rights Commission to initiate all appropriate actions. The State Human Rights Commission ordered for an investigation and sought for an enquiry report by the Superintendent of Police, Investigation Division, State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. The Investigation Officer submitted his report, and based on the investigation report the learned Single Member of the State Human Rights Commission closed the complaint. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted. 8. The Investigation Officer submitted his report, and based on the investigation report the learned Single Member of the State Human Rights Commission closed the complaint. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that on receipt of the investigation report by the Investigating Agency, the State Human Rights Commission ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, enabling him to prove that the report is false and the investigations are improperly conducted on account of political reasons. Such a valuable opportunity contemplated under the statute has not been provided and the complaint was closed by the learned Single Member of the State Human Rights Commission without adjudicating the issues and not providing an opportunity to the petitioner to contravene the contents in the investigation report. 9. The learned Advocate General would oppose by stating that objections from the petitioner had been received on the investigation report. After receiving objections from the petitioner, the complaint was closed by the learned Single Member of the Commission. Thus, there is no infirmity as such and the writ petition is to be rejected. 10. Heard the parties to the lis on hand. 11. Section 14 of the Human Rights Act , contemplates Investigation. Sub Section (4) to Section 14 enumerates that “the officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-Section (1) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the inquiry and submit a report thereon to the Commission within such period as may be specified by the Commission in this behalf”. 12. Sub Section (5) denotes that “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”. 13. Chapter IV of the Human Rights Act , provides Procedures and Section 17 provides Procedures for Inquiry into Complaints. 14. 13. Chapter IV of the Human Rights Act , provides Procedures and Section 17 provides Procedures for Inquiry into Complaints. 14. In the context of the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that sub-Section (5) to Section 14 in unambiguous terms stipulates that “the investigation report submitted under sub-Section (4) the Commission may make such inquiry including the examination of a person or persons who conducted or assisted in the investigations. Therefore, there may be two possible circumstances where (1) there is no prima facie case for entertaining a complaint and in such a case the Commission may close the complaint in limini. (2) where the investigation report reveals certain facts or the investigation report is running counter to the complaint in totality, then the Commission is expected to provide personal hearing for the complainant and the examination of a person or persons who conducted or assisted in the investigation. 15. The case on hand is falling under the second category, in view of the fact that a complaint reveals several allegations which all are undoubtedly serious in nature. The procedure for arrest and the manner in which different accused persons are to be treated by the police authorities have been well settled by the constitutional Courts and therefore, the police authorities are bound by those decisions and the procedures as contemplated. Perusal of the order impugned reveal that there is no such discussion or opportunity provided to the petitioner to ventilate his grievances and to controvert the investigation report if any. 16. In the context of the facts, this Court is of the considered view that the Commission ought to have provided an opportunity of personal hearing into the allegations of this nature, more specifically when it is from prominent persons, who was holding various constitutional posts and other posts in various capacities and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. 17. In view of the discussions made above, the order impugned passed by the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case Nos. 3111/22/13/2022, 5205/22/14/2022 and 5310/22/14/2022/HC3 dated 07-07-2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Human Rights Commission for conducting a fresh enquiry and dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 3111/22/13/2022, 5205/22/14/2022 and 5310/22/14/2022/HC3 dated 07-07-2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Human Rights Commission for conducting a fresh enquiry and dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. This Court request the Hon’ble Chairman to take up the matter himself by constituting a Bench for dealing with the merits of the case. 18. The Writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.