Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8924 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Rathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 27.2.2018, whereby a sum of Rs.4 lac is directed to be recovered from the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is responsible for passing of orders by the National Human Rights Commission for awarding compensation to two persons. The Commission has also granted liberty to the State to recover such amount from the guilty persons. It is in furtherance of the order of the tribunal that the order impugned has been passed. The only ground to challenge the order is that petitioner has not been put to any notice and his guilt has not been established for the purposes. It is also stated that the National Human Rights Commission heard only the State of Uttar Pradesh and the authorities were expected to afford an opportunity to the petitioner and establish his guilt before proceeding further. Reliance is placed upon an order passed in similar circumstance in Writ Petition No.64305 of 2007. The observations made therein reads as under:-
"2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.09.2007. It is said that National Human Rights Commission cannot pass any order imposing any punishment or asking the petitioners to pay any compensation. At the best, after making enquiry, it can make recommendation to various authorities. So far as State Government is concerned, the power of imposing punishment of recovery etc. is not disputed. But it is said that before passing the order by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, no enquiry was conducted against petitioners in accordance with statutory rules and there is no determination of compensation by any competent forum. Therefore, order is clearly illegal.
3. Despite repeated query, learned counsel appearing for respondents could not show any provision under which an order of punishment could have been passed by the Commission or the State Government could have passed such order without making any enquiry.
4. In absence of any provision shown, in my view, the impugned orders are illegal, unauthorized, withouth jurisdiction and cannot sustain.
5. The Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.09.2007 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition) is hereby quashed."
The aforesaid direction has been followed in other writ petitions, which have been referred to in the petition itself.
Learned Standing Counsel defends the order impugned but does not dispute the fact that State has not conducted any proceedings known to law holding the petitioner liable for recovery of amount.
For the reasons recorded above, as the petitioner has not been put to any notice, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Liberty stands reserved to the State to proceed afresh in the matter, in accordance with law.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Ashok Kr.