Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this writ petition against interim recommendation of the Human Rights Commission for payment of Rs.1 lac as compensation to respondent no.2 in respect of an incident, which had taken place on 27.5.2010 at Agra. According to the petitioner-State of U.P. the recommendation is unjustified, inasmuch as, respondent no.2 had involved himself in illegal activities and in respect thereto a first information report was lodged and a charge sheet had been filed implicating him for causing loss to the public property etc. Reference is also made to the criminal cases, which are said to be pending against respondent no.2 since 2005.
From the order sheet, we find that notices were issued to Human Rights Commission for the first time on 7.2.2014. Fresh steps were directed to be taken for service upon respondent no.1 by registered post under orders of the High Court, which was also complied with and fresh notices were issued to respondent no.1 i.e. Human Rights Commission on 25.8.2014 fixing 18.9.2014 as the date. Office report dated 18.9.2014 records that neither the acknowledgement due has been received back nor the registered envelope has been returned undelivered.
In view of aforesaid, service upon respondent no.1 is deemed sufficient under Chapter 12 Rule 10 of the High Court Rules. Nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.1 even in the revised reading of the cause list.
So far as respondent no.2 is concerned, he is represented by Shri P. S. Gopal, Advocate. It is contended on his behalf that the writ petition at this stage is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, if the State does not accept the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission then the Human Rights Commission can get its recommendation enforced by approaching the High Court or the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 (b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. He further points out that there is a power with the Human Rights Commission to provide interim compensation under Section 18 (c) of the same Act. He also disputes the factual averments, which have been made on behalf of the petitioner-State of U. P. in the present writ petition qua the respondent no.2 having indulged in unlawful activity on the date of incident or his being involved in criminal cases as suggested by the State.
Having heard counsels for the parties and after examining the records of the present writ petition, we feel it proper to examine the procedure in the matter of inquiry to be conducted by the Human Rights Commission as prescribed under Section 18 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 18 as amended and substituted by Act 43 of 2006 reads as follows :
"18. Steps after inquiry.-The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely :
(1) where the inquiry discloses, the commission of violation of human rights, or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant, 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;
(2) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary;
(3) recommend to the concerned Government or authority for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;
(4) subject to the provisions of clause (5) provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative;
(5) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments or the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission;
(6) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission."
From a reading of the aforesaid Section, it is apparently clear that the Human Rights Commission in the matter of violation of human rights or negligence in prevention of violation of human rights or abatement thereof by a public servant after inquiry may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation/damages to the complainant or the victim or the members of the family and may direct initiation of proceedings for prosecution or to take such further action as it may deem fit. But, the Commission on its own has no power to enforce its recommendation as per Section 18 (b) which provides that the Commission may approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary.
Section 18 (c) of the Act confers power upon the Commission to grant such immediate relief to the victim or the members of his family as it deems fit. Section 18 (e) provides for the action which can be taken by the Government on receipt of the inquiry report along with recommendation of the Commission. It is provided that concerned State Government may within a period of one month or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission .
Sub-section (f) provides that the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government forwarded under sub-section (e).
Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides for constitution of Human Rights Courts.
Counsels for the parties could not refer to any other provision whereunder the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission could be enforced either under the Act or under the Rules framed thereunder.
From the aforesaid what follows is that after recommendation has been made by the Human Rights Commission. The State Government may deem fit and proper to not to act upon the recommendations so made. The only recourse available for enforcing the recommendation of the Commission in that circumstance is by approaching the Supreme Court or the High Court for such directions, orders or writs as it may deem necessary.
We are also of the opinion that if a power has been conferred upon the State Government under Section 18 (e) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to submit its comments on the recommendations in the shape of a report to the Commission including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon. Such power must also be read to be available to the State Government in the matters of recommendation made by the Commission to the State Governments for grant of immediate interim relief, and for enforcing the recommendations pertaining to immediate interim relief. The same procedure has to be followed in respect of immediate reliefs as would be applicable in the matter of final reports to be submitted by the Commission meaning thereby that such order could be got enforced only by approaching the Supreme Court or the High Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case we, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition by providing that the State Government may file its report before the Human Rights Commission in response to the recommendation impugned in the present writ petition within two (2) weeks and it shall be open to the Human Rights Commission to proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 18 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and to do the needful accordingly.
Order Date :- 9.12.2014/himwan