IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13001 of 2009(U)
1. THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA CO.LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
... Respondent
2. SOMAN VADAKKEKKARA,
3. GANGADHARAN,
4. BINU VIJAYAN,
5. VINOD,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :02/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.13001 of 2009-U
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner challenges the proposal of the
Kerala State Human Rights Commission to make a
local inspection in relation to Ext.P1 complaint.
The complainants therein appear to project a case
that there is violation of human rights in
relation to insistence on payment of fee and also
by placing certain restrictions on the freedom of
movement to a place which, according to the
complainants, is a temple which is a place of
worship. The question whether such a right
asserted by the complainants amounts to a human
right for the purpose of Human Rights Act and the
further question as to whether the complaint has
been made within the time limit prescribed and
also as to whether such a right could be enforced
as against the petitioner’s claim that the entire
WP(C)13001/09 -: 2 :-
property is its holding, are matters on which the
Human Rights Commission has not expressed. It is
premature for this Court, if at all it is called
upon, to conclude that the Human Rights
Commission should desist from proceeding to
consider the case further. The repository of the
powers under the Act is statutorily made on a
high office and persons who have held very high
office hold the jurisdiction under the Human
Rights Act. It is not appropriate for this Court
to step in, at any rate, at this point of time.
2.It is also pointed out that various other
litigations have ended in favour of the
petitioner and that the report of the Collector
is also in favour of the petitioner. I also do
not deem it appropriate to direct the Human
Rights Commission to pass an order on the
aforesaid issue, though such a particular relief
is pressed by the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, without prejudice to
WP(C)13001/09 -: 3 :-
the right of the petitioner to pursue its
objections before the Human Rights Commission,
this writ petition is dismissed, without
expressing anything on merits.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/050609