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.