BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/11/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.(MD) No.10828 of 2009 Sankar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Human Rights commission, Thiruvarangam 143, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai -28. 2.Joys Mary, 7th Street, Aameenpuram, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings in SHRC No. 9724 of 2007 by considering the petition filed by the petitioner on 16.10.2008. !For Petitioner ... Mr. T.A. Ebenezer ^For Respondents ... Mr. Palaramasamy Special Government Pleader ***** :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct
the first respondent to drop the proceedings, in SHRC No. 9724 of 2007, by
considering the petition filed by the petitioner, on 16.10.2008.
2. The petitioner has stated that he was working as a Sub-Inspector of
Police at Melapalayam Police Station, in the year 2007 and presently, he is
working in Palayamkottai Police Station, as a Sub-Inspector of Police. The
petitioner had submitted that the alleged husband of the second respondent, one
Palanichamy, was a life convict in a murder case and he had been released after
serving his full sentence. He had been writing petitions, under the name of
‘Discharged Prisoners Aid Society’. After his appointment, as a writer in the
jail, he had started to misbehave with the wives and other lady visitors to the
jail. Many complaints have been lodged by the prisoners and their family
members. Based on the complaints, he has been terminated from his duties, as a
writer.
3. The petitioner has stated that the alleged husband of the second
respondent was indulging in many criminal activities, including extortion of
money from various persons. On 4.6.2007, one Kilbert had preferred a complaint
against Palanichamy. Based on the complaint, the petitioner had taken up the
investigation and he had arrested Palanichamy, by following the due process of
law. Even though he had injured himself, under the influence of alcohol, by
falling down, he had made a complaint against the petitioner, based on false
charges, before the State Human Rights Commission, in SHRC No.9724 of 2007.
4. A counter affidavit had been filed by the petitioner and the
proceedings were pending before the first respondent. In the meanttime, the said
Palanichamy had died, on 31.5.2008. Even after the death of Palanichamy, the
second respondent is continuing the proceedings after getting the permission
from the first respondent. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has
been preferred, under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
5. Mr. T.A. Ebenezer, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner had submitted that the second respondent was not the legal heir of
the said Palanichamy as he had not married her. In fact, she was only living
with the said Palanichamy. No legal heir certificate had been produced by the
second respondent to show that she was the wife of Palanichamy.
6. Further, the learned counsel had also submitted that the State Human
Rights Commission cannot proceed with the proceedings, under Section 36(2) of
the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993, which reads as follows:-
“36.(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any
matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting
violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed”.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent had stated that an
enquiry, in respect of the matter in question, is being conducted and that the
enquiry is likely to be completed, expeditiously. He had also submitted that the
State Human Rights Commission would consider the contentions raised by the
petitioner, in his counter, dated 16.10.2008 and that it would pass appropriate
orders, thereafter.
8. In view of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the
petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the
reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. No grounds have been made out
before this Court to drop the proceedings, in SHRC No.9724 of 2007, as prayed by
the petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands
closed. No costs.
ses
To
The State Human Rights commission,
Thiruvarangam
143, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai -28.