IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28753 of 2008(W)
1. SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
... Respondent
2. P.N.SETHUNATH, SUB INSPECTOR, OF
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :01/12/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).28753/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the
Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner as early as
on 13.5.2002. By the said order, Human Rights
Commission noting that the petitioner was not present
before the Commission, had dismissed his complaint
for default. I had requested the learned counsel for the
petitioner to get instructions as to why there was such
extensive delay on the part of the petitioner, in
approaching this Court, challenging Ext.P7 which was
passed on 13.5.2002.
2. An additional affidavit has been filed by the
petitioner explaining the reasons which allegedly
contributed to the delay, on 17.11.2008. I have gone
through the said affidavit and in paragraph 5 thereof,
petitioner aged 46, submits that if his memory is
correct, he has personally gone and enquired about
the follow up of his complaint in the office of the
Commission in the year 2003 and that he was directed
W.P.(C).28753/2008
2
to contact over telephone to ascertain the position of his
complaint and he used to contact at least once in a
month. It seems that the petitioner continued to do so
for more than four years. He is seen to have filed
Ext.P11 complaint on 1.6.2007.
3. I am unable to accept the reason put forward by
the petitioner, attempting to explain the gross delay in
having approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order.
Remedy of the petitioner should have been to first
approach the Commission pointing out the reasons for
his absence on 13.5.2002. That is also not seen to have
been done within a reasonable time. There is
unexplained delay and lapse on the part of the petitioner.
I do not think this is a fit case to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Writ petition is hence dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs