ASHOK KRIPLANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court, who is an advocate, filed a complaint against one Dr. Jethwani alleging illegal medical practice by him thereby violating the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act as well as the Indian Penal Code. This was followed by a complaint against the SHO before the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission. The said complaint was sent to Deputy SP, Kota, for investigation, who recorded the statement of the petitioner and his wife. The Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission invited rejoinder/ comments of the petitioner on the discharge report submitted by the Deputy SP, Kota, to the said Commission. According to the petitioner, he has sent his rejoinder to the discharge report of the Deputy SP, Kota and the same had reached the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission on 5.3.2012. However, a member of the Commission Mr. H.R. Kudi vide order dated 5.3.2012, disposed of the complaint, on the ground that the rejoinder of the petitioner to the report of Deputy SP, Kota, had not been received.

(2.) BEING aggrieved from dismissal of his complaint, the petitioner gave a notice under Section 80 Cr.P.C to the said member of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission, asking him to explain why a civil suit and criminal prosecution be not initiated against him. Since no reply to the said notice was received, the petitioner made a complaint to President of India under Section 23 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, for removing Mr. H.R. Kudi from the position of Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission. The said complaint was forwarded by the Office of President of India to the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan, for necessary action. Being aggrieved from the course of action adopted by the office of President of India, the petitioner is before this Court with the following prayers:

(3.) IT is not known at what time the consignment bearing number ED101633850 -IN was delivered in the Office of Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission. Since the order passed by the member of Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission came to be passed on the very same day on which this consignment is reported to have been delivered at the office of the Commission, it is obvious that it could not have been available on the file of the Commission at the time the complaint was disposed of. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that the Member of the Commission should have waited till 5 pm on 5.3.2012, because he could have sent the response at any time up to 5.3.2012 and he was not required to appear in person. I, however, do not agree with the petitioner. In my view, the response should have been sent well -in - time so that it could reach the Commission before the date of hearing fixed by it and could be on the file on 5.3.2012. Since, the response reached the office of the Commission on the same date on which the complaint made by the petitioner was disposed of, the order passed by the Commission, on that date, appears to be justified. Even if it is assumed that the Commission should have waited for the response of the petitioner till 5 pm on 5.3.2012, instead of disposing of the complaint on the same date, that, in my view, does not constitute any offence.