KAMALA NIKETON MONTESSORI SCHOOL Vs. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF TAMIL NADU; CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL, TAMIL NADU; BERNADINE MADEEN; MILENDA RENAVANHALTREN; M V PALANICHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Human Rights Commission are present.

(2.) The short point arises for consideration is as to whether the first respondent/Human Rights Commission has any authority to issue show cause notice to the petitioner's school inrespect of the complaint given by second respondent representing the respondents 3 to 5.

(3.) The few facts which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows : the respondents 3 to 5 sent a notice to the petitioner herein with copy marked to the second respondent/Consumer Protection Council on various dates in respect of different issues. While notice issued by third respondent/Bernadine Madeen is for recovery of her original certificates which are according to her, handed over to the school Correspondent at the time of her employment as teaching assistant in the school, the complaint given by fourth respondent/Milendarena Vanhaltern is also of similar in nature. It is stated in both the complaints that the Correspondent offered to give back the certificates on payment of Rs.10,500/- representing three months salary. As far as the notice issued by the fifth respondent is concerned, the same is in respect of refund of excess fee of Rs.4,065/- collected from the parent in connection with the studies of one Preethi. On receipt of the same, the second respondent/Secretary, Consumer Protection Council, after duly receiving the copies of the notice, sent a complaint against the self financing schools to the President, State Human Rights Commission. The same was taken up on file by the Commission/first respondent and notice was issued to the petitioner/Correspondent to appear before the Commission for an enquiry on the date specified therein. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.