M.P.CHOTHY Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.29649/2018, challenging judgment dated 28.06.2019 of the Single Judge. The appellant appeared in person. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P11 order issued by the 1 st respondent. The appellant contended that he was summoned to the office of the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in connection with enquiry of the complaint No.5088/2013, which incidentally is a complaint filed by the appellant. According to him, he had attended the hearing on six occasions, along with his wife, spending huge amount of money, under bonafide belief that the expenses will be reimbursed to him by the Commission, as per Rule 11 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. A request made by the petitioner for such reimbursement was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P11. The reasoning in Ext.P11 order is that the Commission being a statutory body constituted under the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act , 2007 (Act 20 of 2007), can function only under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder and that the said Act and Rules do not contain any provision for payment of TA/DA to the victims/witnesses of atrocity who appeared before the Commission. The Writ Petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and was dismissed on the ground that there is no provision under Act 20 of 2007.

(2.) According to the appellant, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (Act 33 of 1989) contains provision for payment of travelling and maintenance expenses, etc. during investigation, inquiry and trial and the said provisions should be made applicable for the enquiry by the Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Further contention of the appellant is that, Act 20 of 2007 itself cannot be held to be valid in law since it contains provisions which are against the central enactment, Act 33 of 1989.

(3.) Heard the appellant in person and the Government Pleader for respondents.