Tripura High Court
Sri Dipak Saha vs The Tripura Human Rights Commission And ... on 10 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 458 of 2024
Sri Dipak Saha
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Tripura Human Rights Commission and 3 Others.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Elembrok Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 10.07.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking
the following reliefs:
(i) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondent no. 1 or each one of them to show
cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari shall not be issued to quash the order dated
17.05.2024 and the entire proceedings initiated in pursuant to Complaint Case No.
29/2024.
AND
(ii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondent no. 1 or each one of them to show
cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari shall not be issued to quash the order dated
06.06.2024 and the entire proceedings initiated in pursuant to Complaint Case No.
29/2024.
AND
(iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondent no. 1 or each one of them to show
cause as to why a Writ of Prohibition shall not be issued to stay the proceedings vide
Complaint Case No. 29/2024 initiated in the Tripura Human Rights Commission;
AND
(iv) As to why such other order/orders shall not be passed so as to give full relief(s) to
the Petitioner and upon causes shown to make the rule absolute.
AND
In case the respondents show cause or not, make the rule absolute in terms of prayer
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) as above.
AND
Pending disposal of the writ petition, Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to
stay the further proceedings of Complaint No. 29/2024 pending before the Hon'ble
Tripura Human Rights Commission.
[3] The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a dedicated father who is
currently facing harassment from his wife-respondent no. 3. His minor son is, at the
moment, undergoing cancer treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital at Kolkata. Few months
back, the respondent no. 3-wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint to the Tripura Human
Rights Commission (in short 'Commission') via email, alleging that their son's human
rights were being violated. Upon taking cognizance of the aforesaid complaint, the
respondent no. 1 and 2 on 17.05.2024 passed an interim order of compensation of 2 lakhs
rupees against the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for recalling
the order dated 17.05.2024 and to drop the proceeding of complaint case no. 29/2024 on
the ground that the Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of family
dispute as well as the express provision of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and
The Tripura Human Rights Commission Regulations, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act' and 'Regulations'). However, the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 06.06.2024 has
rejected the prayer of the petition filed on 27.05.2024 which is apparently not in
conformity of the Section 18 of the Human Rights and Commission Act and challenging
the said proceedings, the present Writ Petition is filed.
[4] It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the case pertains to a
family matter/dispute regarding the provision of medical expenses, which should be
adjudicated by a Family Court. The Hon'ble Commission wrongly applied the provision
of human rights principles to a domain where specialized family laws are applicable.
[5] During the course of argument, Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Elembrok Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
husband represented before this court that the petitioner has been taking care of medical
expenses of his son all through. He is also attending the ailing patient son diagnosed with
blood cancer who is under treatment in Tata Medical Centre in Kolkata. The petitioner
would also, in future, continue to monitor the situation and meet the medical expense of
his ailing son.
[6] At this juncture, where the petitioner-husband and the mother-unofficial
respondent is raising disputes against each other in terms of their family right, the father
has initiated taking care of his son and the petitioner has also submitted before this Court
that he has already made certain prayers for medical reimbursement before his employer.
Once the amount is released, the father would certainly meet the further needs of the son
as well. Appreciating the said contention and stand of the father, this court is of the view
that the present petition cannot be entertained at this juncture. The need of the hour is to
look after the ailing son who is fighting with cancer and is under treatment in Tata
Medical Centre in Kolkata. None but only a father and a mother can be the best support of
their son at this time of distress. Stating thus, this court is of the view that the present
petition is liable to be dismissed. However, is so far as the interim order of the Human
Rights Commission which is impugned herein is an interlocutory order and the main case
is pending. Thus, interference at this juncture is uncalled for and the direction is converted
to recommendation holding the petitioner-father responsible towards his son and this
Court declares that he cannot claim immunity on technical reasons.
[7] Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay, if any,
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2024.07.12
12:43:36 +05'30'
