Kerala High Court
Anandan P.K vs The Kerala State Human Rights ...
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/15TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 5308 of 2014 (K)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. ANANDAN P.K., AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. KOCHURAMAN, PARAYAN PARAMBIL,
CHERUMUKHA P.O., AIRANIKUDI, PANDALAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. SUJITH G.,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. GOPI,
THENGINAL PADINJATTETHIL AICKAD,
KODUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.P.APPAN ROAD,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
2. ROSAMMA VARGHESE, D/O. T.G.VARGHESE,
VADAKKEKARA PUTHENVEEDU, MANAKALA P.O., PIN-691 551,
KOTTANELLUR MURI, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05-01-2017,ALONG WITH WPC.NO.5315 OF 2014, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 5308 of 2014 (K)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
P1 : COPY OF PLAINT IN ARC PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES, PATHANAMTHITTA.
P2 : COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------------
R2(A): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18/10/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
R2(B): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23/12/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the complaints pending before the State Human Rights Commission. According to the petitioners, the complaints are not maintainable before the 1st respondent. Ext.P2 complaint prima facie does not show any instances of human rights violations. It is also contended that, by entertaining the complaints, 1st respondent is harassing and pressurizing the petitioners to pay money asked for by the complainants, beyond its jurisdiction and powers. It is therefore, seeking to quash the said complaints, these writ petitions are filed.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents in the writ petitions. Perused the pleadings in the writ petitions, and the documents produced along with the same.
3. If the petitioners have a case that the complaints are not maintainable before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, it is for the petitioners to pursue the matter W.P.(C) Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2014 2 before the Commission itself by filing suitable applications with respect to the maintainability of the complaints. As per the provisions of the Act, the Commission is vested with sufficient powers to reject an application, if it is not within the realm and jurisdiction of the Commission.
4. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the writ petition is the remedy available to the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to approach the Human Rights Commission, if they are aggrieved by the complaints in question.
The writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE //true copy// P.S. to Judge St/-
05.01.2017