ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
This appeal is filed by the State of Kerala against the judgment in O.P.No.30749 of 2001. The O.P. was filed by the appellant challenging Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P5 proceedings of the 1st respondent, the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.
2. Ext.P1 is an interim order passed by the Commission on a compliant made to it directing the appellant to pay Rupees Three lakhs to one Rajesh, the victim of human rights violation, as immediate relief for his suffering at the hands of the State police. It was ordered that out of the said amount, ₹10,000/- shall be paid directly and the balance should be deposited in a fixed deposit entitling the victim to get interest thereon. On receipt of the order, the appellant sought re- consideration of the order. Accordingly, the Commission posted the matter to 12/3/2001 when, despite the absence of the appellant, the request was considered on merits and Ext.P3 order was passed declining to re-call the order. Thereafter Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued and this was followed by Ext.P5 letter requesting the appellant to comply with the earlier direction. It is challenging the above proceedings the O.P. was filed.
3. Before the learned Single Judge two questions were raised. The first one was regarding the competence of the Commission to pass interim order and the second was that the order was passed without affording the appellant sufficient opportunity to put forward their case. Both the contentions were rejected and the Original Petition was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, the appeal was filed.
4. Before us also the learned Government Pleader reiterated these contentions. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, we feel that the answer to the contention is in Section 18 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, a reading of which itself shows that the Commission is fully empowered to grant interim relief to the victim or to the members of his family. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, as we have already seen, after Ext.P1 order was passed, on the request of the Government, the case was again posted to 12/3/2001. On that occasion the appellant remained absent. On account of their absence, though the Commission could have rejected the request made by the State for re- consideration, still, the Commission considered the matter in detail and passed Ext.P3 order. In such circumstances, there is no substance in the plea that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to project their contentions. Therefore, both these contentions were rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any illegality in the conclusions arrived at in the judgment under appeal.
We do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj