Rama.Subbiah @ Subbu vs The State Human Rights Commission on 14 July, 2005

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Rama.Subbiah @ Subbu vs The State Human Rights Commission on 14 July, 2005

Bench: P.D.Dinakaran

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

Dated: 14/07/2005 

Coram 

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARAN   

Writ Petition No.298 of 2000


Rama.Subbiah @ Subbu           ...                     Petitioner

-Vs-

1.     The State Human Rights Commission, 
        rep.by its Registrar,
        State Guest House,
        Chepauk,
        Chennai - 5.

2.      The Superintendent of Police,
        Madurai.

3.      G.Rajendran
        Sub-Inspector (CID)
        Vadipatty
        Madurai District.               ...                     Respondents


        This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari, as stated therein.

For Petitioner         :       Mr.V.T.Balajee

For 1st Respondent     :       Mr.A.Muthuraman
For 2nd Respondent      :       Mr.E.Sampathkumar
                                Government Advocate
For 3rd Respondent      :       Mr.G.Jawaharlal


:O R D E R

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the file of the first respondent in its proceedings No.SHRC P.No.253/9 9/SNS-J, dated 18.12.1999 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner under the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act, 1993 read with State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu ( Procedure) Regulation Act, 1997.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent harassed him in connection with the occurrence said to have taken place on 30.1.1999 at Vadipatti bus stand and also taken his son to the police station and beat him. In that connection petitioner lodged a complaint before the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission and the same was dismissed by the order dated 18.12.1999 stating that the Commission is satisfied with the report of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, dated 1.12.1999 that the third respondent did not commit any violation of the human rights as alleged by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. It is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the State Human Rights Commission is empowered to dismiss a complaint in limine, exercising the power conferred under Regulation 9, if the allegations are not specific.

5. When the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission takes a decision, taking all relevant considerations into account and states that they are satisfied with the report of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, the same should not be interfered with by the court unless the court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate authority had not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken by the appropriate authority mala fide. What is required under the Regulations is only subjective satisfaction of the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission that there was no violation of the human rights as alleged by the petitioner, and ordinarily it is not open to the Court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts.

In the result, finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

vr/na/sasi To

1. The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission, State Guest House, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court