IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.12.2010 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.15955 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Dr.A.Ganesan ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Chennai-600 028. 2. Dr.M.S.Latha Assistant Surgeon, Government Primary Health Centre, Thally-635 118, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in case No.3547 of 2010/HMI and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.Baba Rengasamy for Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandira For respondents : Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla,GP asstd. by Ms.M.Sneha, GA for R1 Mr.V.Bhiman for Mr.Asaithambi for R2 *** O R D E R
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY THE HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice and proceedings of the first respondent, viz., Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission in Case No.3547 of 2010/HMI, mainly on the ground that the complaint filed by the second respondent was entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of the alleged incident.
2. It appears that on 22.4.2010, the second respondent lodged a complaint with the first respondent alleging inter alia that while she was working as Medical Officer at Government Primary Health Centre, Thally, she was instructed by the then Deputy Director of Health Services, the petitioner herein, to assume charge and shift the office to Thally because of the sudden demise of the Block Medical Officer, by name, Dr.A.Manivannan. Accordingly, the second respondent assumed charge. The second respondent made the following allegations in the complaint:-
”Accordingly, in obedience of the orders, I assumed the charges on 30.6.2008 and listed out all irregularities, discrepancies committed by the above deceased Doctor and submitted to the notice of the above Deputy Director. The above named Deputy Director used to frequently, say twice in a week, visit without any prior notice to me to Government Primary Health Centre, Thally and he was closely moving with me and used to ask for records, documents, registers etc. as if appearing to be checking, but he used to touch my hands, indirectly communicative sexual favours, but I was not able to infer his ill motives behind. However, one day he visited at 6.00 P.M. and demanded documents of Dr.Manivannan for verification. When I presented he touched my hands under pretext of collecting said books from me with hard impressions, which amounted a demand for sexual favour. Another incident it so happened in the month of March 2009, to my surprise, I was called to meet the said Deputy Director on the phone to meet him at his office at about 10.00 pm with fictitious information which required personal detailed discussion. Accordingly accompanied by Mr.Krishnappa, a elderly person known to my family, I met the said Deputy Director at his office in Krishnagiri at about 10.00 pm in March 2009. At that time, none was there at his office chamber when I called on him. He demanded the registers of the deceased Doctor and I taken the concerned documents when the Deputy Director asked me to sit by his side of seat. I reluctantly sat down.”
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned notice was issued under the signature of the Assistant Registrar (Law) of the first respondent Human Rights Commission directing the petitioner to appear before the Commission, for enquiry.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that even accepting the allegations made in the complaint to be correct, the incident took place some time in the year 2008 and March 2009, whereas the complaint was made only on 22.4.2010. According to the learned counsel, ignoring the provisions of Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulations 9 and 10 of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997, the Commission entertained the complaint and proceeded with the enquiry.
5. From a perusal of the impugned notice, it does not appear that either the complaint was lodged within time or even if it was beyond time, whether the said period of limitation was condoned.
6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that since the petitioner challenges the maintainability of the proceeding initiated before the Commission on the ground that such complaint lodged by the second respondent cannot be entertained beyond a period of one year, he may appear before the Commission and raise the question with regard to limitation. In such event, the Commission shall first decide the question of limitation that may be raised by the petitioner and thereafter proceed with the enquiry if it is found that the complaint was within time. Since the Commission is said to have fixed the date of hearing as 19th January 2011, we direct the petitioner to file an objection on the question of limitation and if any such objection is filed by the petitioner, the Commission shall first decide the maintainability of the complaint by passing a reasoned order. Needless to say that if the complaint is made within time, the Commission shall proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be no order as to costs.
(M.Y.E., C.J.) (T.S.S., J.)
20.12.2010
Index : yes
Internet : yes
js
To
The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu State Human Rights
Commission,
Chennai-600 028.
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. js
W.P.No.15955 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
20.12.2010