Dileep Khan vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17050 of 2008(D)


1. DILEEP KHAN, S/O.SHOUDHANNAN RAWTHER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

3. THE SECRETARY,

4. THAHA HUSSAIN, AI NOOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :09/06/2008

 O R D E R
                            S. Siri Jagan, J.
              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                     W. P (C) No. 17050 of 2008
              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                   Dated this, the 9th June, 2008.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Exts.P.1 and P3 orders. Ext. P1 is the

order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission,

Thiruvananthapuram, in a petition filed by the 4th respondent seeking

compensation for illegal police action of the petitioner and others on

his minor son, resulting in injuries to the minor son directing

payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the 4th respondent and

also directing the appropriate authority to initiate disciplinary

proceedings against the petitioner and others.

2. I have considered the arguments of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner seeks interference with Ext. P1 as also Ext. P3

purely on the ground that Ext. P1 has been passed on a wrong

appreciation of evidence. Ext. P1 is dated 22-11-2007. The petitioner

is challenging the same on 6-6-2008, without any plausible

explanation for the delay. Further, the question involved is purely a

matter of appreciation of evidence. On a reading of Ext. P1, I find

that the Commission has elaborately discussed the evidence before it

and had given cogent reasons for the conclusion arrived at. I do not

find anything therein even remotely suggesting any perversity in the

appreciation of evidence. Without such finding of perversity, I cannot

interfere with Ext. P1 in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find

any merit in the challenge against Ext. P1. Ext. P3 being a

consequential order, the challenge against Ext. P3 is also without any

merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[True copy]

P.S to Judge.