ALOK Vs. BIHAR STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2170 of 2010 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2010, (2010 AIHC 3010) whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'SHRC'), whereby fine was imposed on the appellant for violation of human rights of respondent No. 2, has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The appellant was at the relevant point of time posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bettiah. Respondent No. 2 was at loggerheads with one Abhay Prasad concerning a land dispute. Abhay Prasad has had a dispute with respect to a piece of land situate in front of the complainant's house. According to the complainant, he had purchased the land for Rs. 3,30,000/- way back in the year 2002, his name had been mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of the order passed in Mutation Case No. 284 of 2002-03, and he has been paying rent to the State Government. According to the complainant, Abhay Prasad wanted to grab the land and, with this end in view, got in collusion with the appellant who was then posted there.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the order of the learned writ court, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in view of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), SHRC could not have been proceeded against after expiry of one year commenceing from the act constituting violation of human rights. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and others, 2004 2 SCC 579. He submits in the same vein that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying on Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. He next submits that SHRC has seriously erred in refusing to rely on the report of the D.I.G. which makes adverse comments on the report of the Sub perintendent of Police. In his submission of reliance were placed on the D.I.G.'s report then the appellant would not in the least be guilty of violation of any human rights. He lastly submits that, in view of the position that NHRC was already in seisin of the complaint, jurisdiction of SHRC is excluded in view of the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act.