IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.42657 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Ms.H.S.Aruna Prabha, D/o late H.S.Bangera, Aged about 51 years, Presently working as Tahsildar, Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District – 571 501.
(By Sri.Manjunatha.K, Advocate for Sri.T.Mohandas Shetty, Advocate) AND:
… Petitioner Smt.Gowramma, W/o late Anku Gowda, Aged about 80 years, R/o Thimmasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District – 571 501. (By Smt.Gowhar Unnisa, Advocate) … Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission at Bangalore in HRC No.2694/2012 dated 05.05.2014 as per Annexure-Q and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Manjunatha K, learned counsel for Sri.T.Mohandas Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel for the respondent.
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 recommendation made by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’ for short) contained in the Annexure-Q dated 05.05.2014.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph No.8 of the order submitted that the Commission has issued a direction to initiate disciplinary action against Sri.Krishnaiah, Tahsildar, Channapatna and his predecessor Ms. Aruna Prabha – petitioner herein for their failure to prevent and abetting violation of human rights of the complainant and her son. It is further submitted that the impugned direction has been issued in violation of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent fairly submitted that Human Rights Commissioner has no power to issue any directions.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, it is directed that the directions contained in paragraph No.8 of the order shall not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation and the State Government shall be at liberty to take appropriate action on the recommendation made by the Commission on 05.05.2014 in accordance with law.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-