Abdul Salam K.A vs M.V.Venu
2021 Latest Caselaw 1948 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                        &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

        TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.13536 OF 2015(N)


PETITIONER/S:

                ABDUL SALAM K.A.
                S/O. K.K. ADIMAKUTTY, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERNALLUR
                VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CIRCLE
                INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ISIT, ERNAKULAM.

                BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA

RESPONDENT/S:

       1        M.V.VENU
                MAKKANAYIPAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, MANNAM PARAVUR VILLAGE,
                PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683 513.

       2        REGISTRAR,
                KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, TRUBO PLUS TOWER,
                PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                PIN-695 001.

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH


                SRI.SURIN GEORG IPE, SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021,
     THE COURT ON ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 13536/2015                 :2:




              Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021.

                             JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The writ petition is filed by the respondent in HRMP No. 123/13

challenging the interim order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Kerala

State Human Rights Commission, whereby after assimilating the

situations, the learned Human Rights Commission directed the petitioner

herein to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant therein, who

is the first respondent in this writ petition.

2. According to the writ petitioner, no opportunity was provided to

the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order and therefore,

violative of the principles of natural justice and arbitrary and illegal.

3. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has filed a list of

witnesses to prove his innocence in the matter, which was not taken into

account by the Human Rights Commission and thereby, it has caused

serious prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as

follows:

The petitioner was a Circle Inspector of Police working at Paravur,

Ernakulam District, who received information regarding the theft of an

idol and the same was kept in the premises of the first respondent.

Thereupon, the first respondent was called to the police station for

further enquiry. However, the son of the first respondent along with

some hooligans tried to obstruct the petitioner and also manhandled and

assaulted causing obstruction to the discharge of his official duty.

Accordingly, Crime No. 2239 of 2012 was registered by the North

Paravur, Police Station.

5. The case projected by the petitioner is that 14 days thereafter,

the first respondent preferred a complaint before the State Human

Rights Commission alleging false events with respect to the incident that

is quoted above. It was also submitted that the petitioner had filed

explanation to the complaint of the first respondent. However, without

finally adjudicating the matter by providing an opportunity of both the

parties, the impugned interim order was passed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Smt.

P.R. Reena, Sri. Denizen Komath for the first respondent and Sri. Surin

George Ipe, learned Government Pleader, and perused the pleadings and

materials on record.

7. We find that, the interim order was passed by the State Human

Rights Commission after providing an opportunity to cross examine the

witnesses of the first respondent, but that opportunity was not made use

of by the writ petitioner. Prima facie, the State Human Rights

Commission found that there is some material in the complaint filed by

the first respondent and the impugned order was passed after making

preliminary enquiry with the police force attached to the State Human

Rights Commission.

8. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Government

Pleader has produced the proceeding of the Human Rights Commission

dated 12.05.2015 in the aforesaid complaint, from where we find that a

representation was made before the Commission on that date that a

case is pending before the High Court on the very same subject matter

and accordingly, the Commission has closed the proceeding.

9. On a reading of the proceeding and the reasons assigned for

closing the complaint, we are of the view that the Commission was under

the impression that a parallel proceeding in a writ petition was pending

before this Court. In fact, the proceeding that is pending before this

Court is only the writ petition on hand, which is challenging the interim

order passed by the Commission and it cannot be treated as a parallel

proceeding pending before this Court. We are also of the view that the

Commission has passed the impugned order under the constrained

circumstances since the writ petitioner was not making use of the

opportunity given and having failed to cross examine the witnesses of

the first respondent.

10. In that view of the matter and since the matter is pending

before this Court for the last 5 years, we are of the view that the writ

petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

11. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition directing the State

Human Rights Commission to reopen the proceeding in HRMP No.

123/13/EKM and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the

earliest, after providing an opportunity of participation and hearing to

the respective parties. It is also clear from the proceeding dated

12.05.2015 that no steps would have been taken to implement the

interim order. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the implementation of

the impugned order is kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the

Commission in the complaint filed by the first respondent.

However, we make it clear that the observations and directions

contained above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on

the merits of the matter or rival interest of the parties.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO,.2239/2012 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION REGISTERED ON 17.12.2012

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 31.12.2012

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.4 .2014 BEFORE THE COMMISSION

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST PRODUCED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE COMMISSION

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS NO.HRMP NO. 123/2013 OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 17.3.2015

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

P.S to Judge.

rv