This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to drop the proceedings, in SHRC No. 9724 of 2007, by considering the petition filed by the petitioner, on 16.10.2008.
2. The petitioner has stated that he was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Melapalayam Police Station, in the year 2007 and presently, he is working in Palayamkottai Police Station, as a Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner had submitted that the alleged husband of the second respondent, one Palanichamy, was a life convict in a murder case and he had been released after serving his full sentence. He had been writing petitions, under the name of 'Discharged Prisoners Aid Society'. After his appointment, as a writer in the jail, he had started to misbehave with the wives and other lady visitors to the jail. Many complaints have been lodged by the prisoners and their family members. Based on the complaints, he has been terminated from his duties, as a writer.
3. The petitioner has stated that the alleged husband of the second respondent was indulging in many criminal activities, including extortion of money from various persons. On 4.6.2007, one Kilbert had preferred a complaint against Palanichamy. Based on the complaint, the petitioner had taken up the investigation and he had arrested Palanichamy, by following the due process of law. Even though he had injured himself, under the influence of alcohol, by falling down, he had made a complaint against the petitioner, based on false charges, before the State Human Rights Commission, in SHRC No.9724 of 2007.
4. A counter affidavit had been filed by the petitioner and the proceedings were pending before the first respondent. In the meanttime, the said Palanichamy had died, on 31.5.2008. Even after the death of Palanichamy, the second respondent is continuing the proceedings after getting the permission from the first respondent. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been preferred, under
Article 226 of Constitution of India.
5. Mr. T.A. Ebenezer, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent was not the legal heir of the said Palanichamy as he had not married her. In fact, she was only living with the said Palanichamy. No legal heir certificate had been produced by the second respondent to show that she was the wife of Palanichamy.
6. Further, the learned counsel had also submitted that the State Human Rights Commission cannot proceed with the proceedings, under
Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993, which reads as follows:- "36.(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed".
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent had stated that an enquiry, in respect of the matter in question, is being conducted and that the enquiry is likely to be completed, expeditiously. He had also submitted that the State Human Rights Commission would consider the contentions raised by the petitioner, in his counter, dated 16.10.2008 and that it would pass appropriate orders, thereafter.
8. In view of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. No grounds have been made out before this Court to drop the proceedings, in SHRC No.9724 of 2007, as prayed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.
ses To The State Human Rights commission, Thiruvarangam 143, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai -28.