BIHARILAL THAWAIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1, M.P. Human Rights Commission, to supply the copy of entire inquiry report to him.

(2.) ON a perusal of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was admitted to the 'Orthopadic Home' running by a Private Doctor Prakash Lodhikar who assured him that he would be completely alright within a period of three years. Operation of both the legs was done on 19 -11 -98 by the said doctor and thereafter the petitioner was suggested to do some exercise. He discharged from the said Orthopadic Home on 15 -3 -89. According to the petitioner the Doctor also advised him to do massage of his legs and not to bend his legs which he seriously followed. It is averred that the petitioner availed the treatment from time to time. On 2 -2 -95 the then Collector Shri Raut referred the petitioner to an another specialist Orthopadic Doctor Shri R.S. Dhir, Bilaspur who informed him that Dr. Lodhikar has falsely assured him that he would recover. As the petitioner did not recover and became more helpless he made an application to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, M.P., Bhopal on the ground that there had been violation of human rights. He also prayed for grant of damages. It is also setforth in the writ petition that an enquiry was conducted by the respondent who by impugned letter dated 24 -4 -96 informed the petitioner in the following terms : - - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... The petitioner made further representation to the competent authority of Human Rights Commission who vide Annexure P -4 dated 31 -3 -97 informed the petitioner in the following manner : - - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for supply of the copy of the inquiry report vide Annexure P -5 dated 3 -10 -98. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 18 of the Human Rights Commission Act (in short 'the Act') to highlight that the petitioner is entitled to the supply of copy of enquiry report.

(3.) ON a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions it is quite clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the investigation report made by the Commission inasmuch as the Commission has not found, on an inquiry, that there has been violation of one's right or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant. That apart, the case of the petitioner was closed in the year 1996 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 1999. On both counts, I am not inclined to entertain the application. Accordingly, it is dismissed in limine.