M MAHENDRAN Vs. K A ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interpretation of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is the subject matter involved in this writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondents 1 and 2 herein have lodged a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, as against the petitioners 1 to 5, alleging certain violations of the human rights by the petitioners 1 to 5, who are the officials of the Forest Department of Tamil Nadu. From the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is seen that the Krishnagiri-Hosur stretch of National Highways was widened about 5 to 10 years back and there was a proposal to raise avenue plantation along National Highways 78 and 46 by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Hosur Division in the year 2004. During the months of August and September, 2004, a stretch of about 3.20 kms. was planted with saplings in Sundampatti village and in one stretch alone from 6.490 km. to 7.31 km. the Forest Department planted about 200 saplings. It has been submitted in the affidavit that the above saplings were planted in the Poramboke land adjoining the Highway which belongs to the State Government and it appears that the land adjoining the Highway after the Government poramboke belongs to the respondents 1 and 2; that the first respondent is a retired Forest Ranger and the second respondent is a retired military man. It has also been averred in the affidavit that on 13.9.2004, when the petitioners 2 to 5 were overseeing the work done by local workers in the Sundampatti village in National Highways 47, the respondents 1 and 2 had clandestinely removed about 63 saplings which were planted along Sundampatti village, which were about 2 meters in height. A complaint was preferred by the 5th petitioner on the very same date before the Kandikuppam police Station, alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 have removed 63 saplings, which caused damage and monetary loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 14,112/=, on which a complaint was registered by the police and the respondents 1 and 2 were brought to the police station for an enquiry and on enquiry, the respondents 1 and 2 undertook to compensate the loss due to Government and assured future good behaviour. It has further been submitted by the petitioners that they did not want to precipitate the issue further and taking into account the fact that the first respondent himself was a retired forest Ranger, they withdrew the aforesaid complaint after the Police recorded their undertaking and a joint memo. was filed before the Police at Kandikuppam Station, to which the petitioners 2 to 4 and the respondents 1 and 2 were the parties. It has further been submitted on the part of the petitioners that after a lapse of nearly three years of the above incident, the petitioners received summons from the third respondent herein, directing them to appear before the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai on 12.9.2007. Aggrieved, they have filed this writ petition contending that Section 36(2) of the Act specifically created a bar on the State Commission not to inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.

(3.) For better understanding, Section 36(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder: