IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53142 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) PRESENTLY S-17 SUB-DIVISION, MURGESH PALYA, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 017 (BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.ASHRAF C.M S/O MR.MOHAMMED C.M. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.286, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, H.A.L. POST, BENGALURU – 560 037.
2. THE CHAIR PERSON … PETITIONER KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, RANICHANNAMMA CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R3; SMT.ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT.A.KUMARAVEL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 HEREIN; QUASH THE ORDER, DATED 27.03.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN IN CASE NO. NIL ANNEXURE-A AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.
Smt.Anupama Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Sri.Kumaravel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, by which the Commission has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs by way of compensation.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the provisions of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), the Commission has no power to issue such an order. In support of the aforesaid submission, attention of this Court has been invited to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the order passed by the Commission be treated as recommendation to the State Government and the State Government be directed to take an action on the recommendation of the Commission in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties including the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act reads as under:
14. Powers relating to inquiries.-
(1) The Commission shall, while inquiring into any matter referred to in clause (j) of sub- section (1) of section 13 have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and, in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; and (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.
(2) The Commission shall have the power to forward any case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case has been forwarded to him under section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
15. Steps after inquiry.-The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:-
(i) where the inquiry discloses, the Commission of violation of child rights of a serious nature or contravention of provisions of any law for the time being in force, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;
(ii) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary;
(iii) recommend to the concerned Government or authority for the grant of such interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary.”
7. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the State Government is required to take an action on the recommendations which may be made by the Commission. In the absence of any specific provision in the Act empowering the Commission to issue an order directing payment of compensation and in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct that the order passed by the Commission dated 27.03.2018 shall be treated as recommendation and proper orders thereon shall be passed by the State Government after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties by a speaking order in the light of Section 15(iii) of the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Ordered accordingly.
8. Needless to state that any observations made in this order shall not affect any claim of the victim made by way of filing a writ petition before this Court seeking compensation.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-