SRI V NAGARAJU Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the communication dated 29.11.2017 (served on the petitioner on 1.3.2018) vide reference No.725/2017-18 issued by the respondent at Annexure-A to the writ petition inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent to pay damages for causing loss of business and reputation of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that without following the due procedure of law, the respondent has locked the business premises of the petitioner much against the principles of natural justice for recovery of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs allegedly paid to the family of deceased Sri.Kumara, who died while cleaning the manhole on the instructions of the petitioner.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel Sri.V.Padmanabha Mahale representing Sri.Navved Ahmed for the petitioner that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission and is not bound by any such orders or communication of the said Commission. The respondent has no authority to call upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.10 lakhs which the respondent is alleged to have paid to the wife of deceased Kumara. Respondent has taken law in their hands to lock the business premises of the petitioner. The action taken by the petitioner is one without jurisdiction and the demand made by the respondent has to be set-aside. Petitioner has suffered huge losses in the business owing to the action of the respondent in locking the Lodge-business premises, where good number of customers and employees have been put to inconvenience in addition to causing financial loss, as well as loss of reputation which was earned and maintained by the petitioner for over the years. Thus, it is contended that the arbitrary exercise of the respondent has to be viewed judicially and damages has to be assessed and directed to be paid by the respondent.