CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND LTD. Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the report dated 27.10.2011. Nay, it would be better to term it as judgment and order or direction. Of course, from the impugned document, we noticed that Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") has described it to be an order.

(2.) Before considering this submission and the case here, looking at the impugned document, we can safely conclude that the Commission has no power under the law to pass any final order or issue a mandate. That is what exactly done. We deem it appropriate to quote the relevant provision of the Protection of Human Rights Commission Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') with regard to the power and functioning of the Commission. Section 29 of the said Act has empowered the State Human Rights Commissions to apply all the provisions of Sections 9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18. Section 18 of the above Act provides as follows:

(3.) It is thus clear that the Commission has power to recommend to do something after reaching fact finding and reporting thereof. It cannot direct or issue a mandate to do or not to do something and this can only be done by the Supreme Court and High Court as mentioned in sub-clause (b). On that ground, the mandate and order given by the impugned document, by the Commission, has to be ignored as the same is without jurisdiction.