PRASANNA KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.6.2000 passed by Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi in a proceeding vide case No. 1455/4/98-99 initiated on the basis of complaint made by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 2 Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha, General Manager (Telephone) had lodged a complaint against the Central Bureau of Investigation Officers including the petitioner alleging his illegal detention by the officers from 25.3.94 to 3.4.94 and his harassment and torture by them resulting in aggravation of his disease of cancer. The Commission after considering the complaint and other materials had dropped the proceeding by order dated 6.11.98, Respondent No. 2 then filed petition before the Commission for the review of the order dated 6.11.98. On receipt of the review petition, notices were issued to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and then to the officers concerned of the Central Bureau of Investigation directing them to show cause as to why recommendation should not be made to the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings and taking such action as may be expedient against them. In reply to the notices, the officers concerned of the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted their show-cause/reply. The Commission thereafter considering the reply of the officers and other materials came to a. prima facie finding that it is a fit case where officers concerned including the petitioner should be proceeded departmentally for their misconduct arising out of the illegal detention of respondent No. 2 Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha for the period 25.3.94 to 3.4.94.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the Commission as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the incident was of the year 1994 whereas petition was originally filed in 1998 and in view of the Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, it could not be entertained by the Commission. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Commission had ordered for closure of the case on 6.11.98 and the review petition was filed on 20.9.99 that is much after the expiry of period of limitation and therefore, the Commission should not have entertained the review petition. Learned Counsel then submitted that power of review has been illegally and arbitrarily exercised by the Commission in reviewing the earlier order.