JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. Heard Mr. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. [ENTITY], learned CGSC for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Mr. [ENTITY], learned GA for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. The core question involved in the present writ petition is; whether the Human Rights Commission can file the present Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to discharge their duties contemplated in [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. The short facts which will suffice for deciding the core question formulated above are that: "The Manipur Human Rights Commission" was constituted by the State Government of Manipur in exercising the power conferred by [SECTION] of the [ACT]. By virtue of [SECTION] of the [ACT], provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] shall also be applicable to the State Human Rights Commission, i.e., Manipur State Human Rights Commission subject to certain modifications. For easy reference, [SECTION] of the [ACT] is quoted hereunder:
29. Application of certain provisions relating to National Human Rights Commission to State Commission.- The provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] shall apply to a State Commission and shall have effect, subject to the following modifications, namely:
(a) Reference to "Commission" shall be construed as references to "State Commission."
(b) In [SECTION]. in sub-Section (3), for the words "Secretary-General", the word "Secretary" shall be substituted;
(c) In [SECTION], [SECTION] shall be omitted;
(d) in [SECTION], in Clause (i), the words "Central Government or any" shall be omitted.
Under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the Commission, i.e., Manipur State Human Rights Commission, shall meet at such time and place as the Chairperson may think fit; and the commission shall regulate its own procedure and all orders and decisions of the Commission shall be authenticated by the Secretary-General or any other officer of the Commission duly authorized by the Chairperson in this behalf. For better appreciation of the present case, [SECTION] of the [ACT] are quoted hereunder:
(2) The Commission shall regulate its own procedure.
(3) All orders and decisions of the Commission shall be authenticated by the Secretary-General or any other officer of the Commission duly authorized by the Chairperson in this behalf.
4. The power and functions of the Manipur Human Rights Commission are more fully prescribed and mentioned in [SECTION] of the [ACT] which reads as follows:
[SECTION]. Functions of the Commission The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:
(a) inquire, suo-motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of
(i) Violation of human rights or abetment thereof ;or
(ii) Negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;
(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a Court with the approval of such Court;
(c) visit, under intimation to the State Government any jail or any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon;
(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the [ACT] or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;
(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhabit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation;
(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;
(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means; (i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organization and institutions working in the field of human rights;
(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.
As contemplated in [SECTION] of the [ACT], the Manipur Human Rights Commission inquires, suo motu, or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf. In the event of filing a complaint contemplated in [SECTION] of the [ACT], by a victim complaining violation of human rights or abetment thereof or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant, the Commission by following the procedures prescribed in [SECTION] of the Act of 1993 has to inquire into the complaint.
5. While inquiring into the complaint the Commission may call for the information or report from the State Government or any other authorities or Organization subordinate thereto within such time as may be prescribed by it. For easy reference, [SECTION] of the [ACT] is quoted hereunder:
[SECTION]. Inquiry into complaints The commission while inquiring into the complaints of violation of human rights may
(i) call for the information from the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority or organization subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it: Provided that
(a) If the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own;
(b) If, on recipt of information or report, the Commission is satisfied either that no further inquiry is required or that the required action has been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly;
(ii) without prejudice to anything contained in Clause (i), if it considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint, initiate an inquiry.
6. Upon a complaint dated 04.06.1999 made to the Petitioner/Commission by Smt [ENTITY], wife of late [ENTITY] of Thiyam Leishangkhong village, it is said that, her husband aged about 43 years died on [SECTION].05.1999 at about 8.30 P.M. by falling down with his cycle into a ditch made for construction of Jamuna Bridge at Irong Chesaba Mathak, while trying to cross the incomplete bridge for which no safety measures were provided. It is also alleged that on [SECTION].05.1999, late Shri [ENTITY], a Police Constable, from Thiyam Leishangkhong left his house with his wife (the complainant) riding his bicycle to a marriage ceremony at her parental house at Thoubal Leishangthem. After attending the marriage ceremony, late [ENTITY] also visited his father-in-law who was ailing at the relevant time and as such, his wife who was also accompanying with him, as an advance party of the bridegroom upto Mayang Imphal Chabung Company where she would wait till his arrival to reach home together. But, [ENTITY] was returning alone by his bicycle along Thoubal Mayang Imphal road after sunset. On the way he fell into the steep fall at the broken unguarded Jamuna bridge and he died on the spot due to fault of the PWD, Manipur.
7. After receiving the said complaint, the Manipur Human Rights Commission also called for report from the Commissioner (Works), Government of Manipur and the Chief Engineer-I, PWD for giving them opportunity to show cause as to why they should not compensate to the dependents of the deceased and also report was called from the Officer-in-charge of the Mayang Imphal P.S. In response thereof, the Commissioner (Works) Government of Manipur and the Chief Engineer-I, PWS also submitted their report after the Chief Engineer- I PWD, called the necessary report from the Addl. Chief Engineer- II. The Officer-in-charge of the M.I.P.S. also submitted report. The Commission, after perusal of the report/statement of the Commissioner, Works, Government of Manipur and the Chief Engineer-I, PWD, Government of Manipur and report of the Officer-in-charge of the M.I.P.S. formulated the following points for inquiry.
(1) Whether Shri [ENTITY] died by falling down into the ditch over which there had been formerly Jamuna bridge along Mayang Imphal Thoubal road on [SECTION].05.1999 at around 8.00 P.M. (2) Whether there was no barricade, sign board/signal or any other visible mark to warn the public about the presence of uncovered ditch along the said road following the breaking down and removal of Jamuna bridge ?
(3) Whether the death of Shri [ENTITY] was due to the negligence of concerned authority/officers of the PWD, Manipur in not putting up barricade, mark, sign board/signal or any other visible mark at the said spot about the removal of the bridge and presence of uncovered ditch along the said road ? If so, who are responsible for that ?
(4) Whether there was violation of human rights and negligence on the part of the concerned public servants in prevention of such violation of human rights ?
(5) Whether the concerned authority/public servants are liable to pay compensation for the death of Shri [ENTITY] and, if so the amount ?
(6) Recommendation of the Commission?
8. For deciding the said 6 (six) points formulated by the Manipur Human Rights Commission (for short the Commission), had examined 8 PWs for the complainant namely, PW-1 Shri [ENTITY], PW-2 Shri [ENTITY], PW- 3 Shri [ENTITY], PW-4 [ENTITY], PW-5 Shri [ENTITY], S.I. of Police, PW-7 Dy. [ENTITY] and PW-8 Smt [ENTITY], the complainant and also 8 DWs for the officers of the PWD, Manipur namely, DW-1 Shri [ENTITY], EE, DW- 2 Shri [ENTITY], DW-3 Shri [ENTITY], DW-4 Shri [ENTITY], DW-5 Shri [ENTITY], DW-6 Shri [ENTITY], DW-7 Shri [ENTITY] and DW-8 Shri [ENTITY]. After completion of the inquiry following the procedures contemplated in [SECTION] of the [ACT] the Commission prepared a report and recommendation dated 21.03.2001.
9. The Commission in its report made a finding in respect of point No. 1 that the evidence have thus proved that [ENTITY] fell into the ditch which was left uncovered after removal of the broken bridge slab while he was travelling riding bicycle along the road from the direction of Thoubal towards Mayang Imphal at around 8 P.M. of [SECTION].05.1999 and he died on the spot. Regarding the point No. 2, the Commission made a finding as thus, since the broken bridge-slab had been dismantled and removed till the fall of [ENTITY], there was no fence, barricade, signal of sign board or any other visible mark to warn the public about the presence of steep fall between the abutments of the removed bridge. The finding of the Commission regarding point nos. 5 and 6 are that it was due to the negligence of the concerned officers of the PWD by not taking up adequate safety measures for the public regarding the broken bridge that an innocent member of the public [ENTITY] died in the tragic incident by falling into the uncovered bridge spot. They are, therefore, responsible for the fatal incident and also that the then Chief Engineer-I, PWD, Manipur, Shri [ENTITY], Addl. Chief Engineer-II, PWD, Manipur (Shri [ENTITY]) and Executive Engineer, Thoubal Division, PWD, Manipur (Shri [ENTITY]) are responsible for the fatal accident and they are equally liable to compensate the loss and as such, the State is vicariously liable to pay compensation. The said report/recommendation dated 21.03.2001 prepared by the Manipur Human Rights Commission, after holding inquiry was forwarded to the Commissioner/Secretary, Works, Government of Manipur under letter of the Assistant Registrar of the Manipur Human Rights Commission dated 02.04.2001 for information and for taking necessary action. After the said letter dated 02.04.2001, the Deputy Secretary, Manipur Human Rights Commission under his letter dated 19.[SECTION].2001 furnished the said report or report and recommendation dated 21.03.2001 to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur for perusal and also for taking necessary action. As the Government fail to take necessary actions on the report dated 21.03.2001 submitted by the Manipur Human Rights Commission, the Manipur Human Rights Commission filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents, i.e., State respondents to perform their public duties by forwarding their comment on the inquiry report made on 21.03.2001 including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the petitioner/commission as expeditiously as possible, and also for issuing a writ or direction to the respondents to carry out the recommendation of the petitioner/commission made in its report dated 21.03.2001 at an early date.
[SECTION]. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also filed their Affidavit-in-opposition in the present writ petition. In their Affidavit-in-opposition respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had taken a specific stand that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Manipur Human Rights Commission cannot be represented by one Shri [ENTITY], who is said to be the Private Secretary to the Members of the Manipur Human Rights Commission on the, inter alia, reasons that under [SECTION] of the [ACT] read with [SECTION] there should be a Secretary who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the State Commission and shall exercise such power and discharge such functions of the State Commission as it may delegate to him but Shri [ENTITY] is not the Secretary of the Petitioner/Commission.
11. Mr. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that till today the State Government in exercise of its powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has not yet appointed Secretary of the Manipur Human Rights Commission. It is also further case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by an order of the Manipur Human Rights Commission being No. 4/2/2002-MHRC dated 11.[SECTION].2002 authorized Shri [ENTITY], Private Secretary (MHRC) to swear affidavit on behalf of the Commission in filing a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court in respect of [CASE NUMBER] (complaint of Smt. [ENTITY]) and to represent the Commission and to do whatsoever necessary for the purpose of the writ petition. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the Deputy Secretary, Manipur Human Rights Commission cannot issue the said order dated 11.[SECTION].2002 for authorizing Shri [ENTITY], Private Secretary to swear the affidavit on behalf of the Commission in the present writ petition and also to represent the Commission to do whatsoever for the purpose of the writ petition and it is not the order of the Manipur Human Rights Commission inasmuch as it is very clear from the order itself. In this regard, Mr. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to [SECTION] of the [ACT] wherein and whereunder decision of the Human Rights Commission can be authenticated by any officer duly authorized by the Chairman himself in this regard. It appears that under the said order dated 11.[SECTION].2002 the Manipur State Human Rights Commission authorized Shri [ENTITY], Private Secretary (MHRC) to represent the Manipur State Human Rights Commission in the present writ petition and he had further been authorized to swear affidavit on behalf of the Commission and also that [ENTITY], Deputy Secretary, can authenticate the order dated 11.[SECTION].2007 under [SECTION] as he had been authorized to do so by the Chairperson MHRC. From close perusal of the [ACT], it is clear that there is no specific Section dealing with as to who shall represent the Human Rights Commission in filing Writ Petition.
[SECTION]. From the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is maintainable.
[SECTION]. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has seriously contended that the nature of relief sought for the [CASE NUMBER] before the Manipur Human Rights Commission as well as the relief sought for the present writ petition cannot be entertained in the present forum inasmuch as proper forum for the reliefs in the complaint would be the Civil Suit. In this regard, Mr. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. wherein the Apex Court had held that though initially a petition under [SECTION] relating to commercial matters was held not to lie, but the law has undergone a change by subsequent decisions and now even contractual matters are amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under [SECTION]. The public law remedies have also been extended to the realm of tort and the Court can award compensation to petitioners who suffer personal injuries amounting to tortuous acts at the hand of officers of the Government. (emphasis supplied). For easy reference para 9 of the SCC in [PRECEDENT]. (supra) is quoted hereunder:
9. Various aspects of the public law field were considered. It was found that though initially a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] relating to contractual matters was held not to lie, the law underwent a change by subsequent decisions and it was noticed that even though the petition may relate essentially to a contractual matter, it would still be amenable to the writ have also been extended to the realm of tort. This Court, in its various decisions, has entertained petitions under [SECTION] of the [ACT] on a number of occasions and has awarded compensation to the petitioners who had suffered personal injuries at the hands of the officers of the Government. The causing of injuries, which amounted to tortuous act, was compensated by this Court in many of its decisions beginning from [PRECEDENT].
[SECTION]. The meaning of 'human right' and 'life' under the [ACT] and also under [SECTION] of the [ACT] had been discussed by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. (supra). It is admitted fact that India is also one of the signatories in the [ACT]. Para 28, 32 and 34 of the SCC in [PRECEDENT]. (supra) read as follows:
28. The fundamental rights are available to all the "citizens" of the country but a few of them are also available to "persons". While [SECTION] which guarantees equality before law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India, is applicable to "person" which would also include the "citizen" of the country and "non-citizen", both, [SECTION] speaks only of "citizen" and it is specifically provided therein that there shall be no discrimination against any "citizen" on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them nor shall any citizen be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort on the aforesaid grounds. Fundamental right guaranteed under [SECTION] is, therefore, restricted to "citizens". So also, [SECTION] which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is applicable only to "citizens". The fundamental rights contained in [SECTION], which contains the right to "basic freedoms", namely, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms; freedom to form associations or unions; freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India; freedom to reside and settle in any part of territory of India and freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation trade or business are available only to "citizens" of the country.
32. The word "LIFE" has also been used prominently in the [ACT]. (See [SECTION] quoted above.) The fundamental rights under the [ACT] are almost in consonance with the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as also the Declaration and the covenants of Civil and Political Rights and the Covenants of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which India is a party having ratified them, as set out by this Court in [PRECEDENT]. That being so, since "LIFE" is also recognized as a basic human right in the [ACT], it has to have the same meaning and interpretation a has been placed on that word by this Court in its various decisions relating to [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The meaning of the word "life" cannot be narrowed down. According to the tenor of the language used in [SECTION], it will be available not only to every citizen of this country, but also to a "person" who may not be a citizen of the country.
34. On this principle, even those who are not citizens of this country and come here merely as tourists or in any other capacity will be entitled to the protection of their lives in accordance with the constitutional provisions. They also have a right to "life" in this country. Thus, they also have the right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity. Just as the State is under an obligation to protect the life of every citizen in this country, so also the State is under an obligation to protect the life of the persons who are not citizens.
[SECTION]. From the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that relegating the claim for damages to file civil suit in a Civil Court is no more a good law in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. (supra) and [PRECEDENT] . The writ petition which is undoubtedly a public law remedy has also been extended to the realm of torts. The words coined as "constitutional tort" had been developing right from [PRECEDENT] and developed clearly in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. (supra).
[SECTION]. From bare perusal of [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is clear that a duty is cast on the concerned State Government, on the report or recommendation by the State Human Rights Commission to consider and forward its comments on the report including action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Commission. Mr. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel by pressing [SECTION] of the [ACT] into service had submitted that the State Government has failed to discharge their duties contemplated in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. According to him, a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the state respondents to discharge their duties. In order to substantiate his submission, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in "[PRECEDENT]. wherein the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under [SECTION] is pre-eminently a public law remedy and it is available against a body or person performing a public law function and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. By referring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. (Supra) learned senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that since the writ of mandamus under [SECTION] is pre-eminently a public law remedy it would be available to the present writ petitioner for compelling the State Government to discharge their duties within the ambit of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Para 29 of the SCC in [PRECEDENT]. (supra) reads as follows:
29. Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under [SECTION] is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. It may be used to do justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties. This writ is admirably equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative actions. This writ could also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. However, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. The scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law and private law remedies. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn. Vol. 30, P. 682.
[SECTION]. From the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the writ petitioner for a writ of mandamus for a direction mentioned above is maintainable.
[SECTION]. Having regard to the above discussion and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases, the core question formulated above is answered in the positive.
19. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to discharge their statutory duties mentioned in [SECTION] of the [ACT] on the said report/recommendation dated 21.03.2001 made by the Manipur Human Rights Commission in [CASE NUMBER]. Parties are to bear their own costs.
20. It is made clear that the period of one month mentioned in [SECTION] of the [ACT], because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of the judgment and order of this case.