NESCO ULTILITY Vs. ODISHA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

(2.) Sole ground of challenge to the impugned order is that when the Odisha Human Rights Commission is only authorised to recommend for enquiry or any action against the public authority, it has no authority to direct for payment of compensation.

(3.) Though there is allegation that there should have been enquiry before coming to such ascertainment, learned counsel for the Petitioners admitted that there has been involvement of an enquiry however it is urged by Sri Tripathy that the enquiry involved cannot facilitate determination of compensation. Sri Tripathy also submitted that since use of electricity by manipulation and/or theft the user of such electricity should have been made liable and shifting liability on the head of petitioner remain improper. It is in the premises, a request is made for interfering with the impugned order and setting aside the same for the Commission exceeding powers under the provision of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.