ALOK Vs. BIHAR STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was proceeded against at the instance of one Gajendra Prasad. It appears that on 10.04.2008, the petitioner, who was the Subdivisional Police Officer, Bettiah, is said to have assaulted the said complainant with ulterior motive. The complainant made two complaints, apart from others, one to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi and second to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), Patna. The complaint to the SHRC was apparently made on 01.12.2008 that is much within one year of the occurrence. The NHRC virtually consigned the matter having forwarded it to the Department for necessary action as they may deem fit. So far as the SHRC is concerned, though the complaint was received and registered on 01.12.2008, it took cognizance of the matter apparently on 30.04.2009. It ordered for enquiry and pursuant to reports received from the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah found the petitioner guilty of violating the complainant's human rights. It awarded cost and recommended disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Let it be recorded that those proceedings were ex parte as against the petitioner. Petitioner then, from newspaper having come to know of such an order passed against him by SHRC, filed a review application stating that when notices were issued to him at Bettiah, he had already been suspended with Headquarters at Patna and it is because of that notices were never served upon him and he did not appear before the SHRC. SHRC then considered the matter on review and considering the case on merit, after hearing the petitioner, by their order dated 26.11.2009, rejected the review and affirmed their earlier order on merits. It is this order against which the present writ application has been filed.

(2.) As before the SHRC, so before this Court, the first ground of challenge was on the bar as contained in Section 36(1) read with Section 21(5) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which, inter alia, provides that if one Commission has taken up enquiry into an incident then that cannot be enquired by another Commission, submission being NHRC having taken up the matter, SHRC could not have taken up the enquiry. Before this Court, a second submission was also made. It was submitted that in terms of Section 36(2) of the said Act, SHRC was incompetent to take cognizance of the matter and order enquiry as more than one year had elapsed since the incident took place. The enquiry, as conducted by SHRC, is thus barred by limitation and there being no power to extend the limitation or condone the delay, all actions taken by SHRC were void ab initio and wholly without jurisdiction.

(3.) Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.