IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1401 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17050/2008 Dated 09/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C). ---------------------------------------------------- DILEEP KHAN, S/O.SHOUDHANNAN RAWTHER, AGED 36 YEARS, ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANAANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C). ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANTHAPURAM. 4. THAHA HUSSAIN, AL NOOR, MANGALAPURAM. THONNACKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.1401 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17050 of 2008 is the appellant. In the Writ Petition, the appellant challenged Ext.P1 order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Ext.P3, the order passed by the State Government on 22.4.2008 giving effect to the directions contained in Ext.P1. By judgment delivered on 9.6.2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 2. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission initiated suo motu proceedings based on a news report that appeared in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 26.4.2007 that the fourth respondent's son was beaten up by the petitioner on the public road. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission thereupon directed the Chief Investigation Officer to make a preliminary enquiry and to file report. After the Kerala State Human Rights Commission initiated suo motu proceedings, the fourth respondent also filed a complaint before the Commission. As directed by the Commission, the Chief Investigation Officer conducted an enquiry and filed a report stating that there is a prima facie case for enquiry by the WA 1401/08 2 Commission against the petitioner and two others. Based on the complaint filed by the fourth respondent and the report submitted by the Chief Investigation Officer, notice was issued to the petitioner and others concerned to appear before the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission conducted an enquiry wherein oral evidence was also adduced. Ext.P1 order was thereupon passed. In Ext.P1 the Commission held as follows: "I therefore hold that the boy Arif Muhammed was beaten at first by RW1 and thereafter by RW3 while he was taken to police station in the presence of RW2 and another police constable. RW2, the Principal Sub Inspector, being a superior officer ought to have prevented RW3 from beating the boy when he was very much present while the boy was at the junction as well as when he was taken to the police station in the jeep. He failed to prevent RW3 from beating the boy and therefore failed in his duty in preventing the said act by RW3. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that PW2 is entitled to compensation, as there is clear case of human rights violation in the case by RW1 to RW3 since RW1 beat Arif Muhammed, a boy aged 17 years and that he was also beaten by RW3 which was not prevented by RW2 who is the senior officer of RW3. Accordingly, I direct the Government to pay a WA 1401/08 3 sum of rupees ten thousand (Rs.10,000/-) as compensation to the boy Arif Muhammed. The Government is at liberty to deduct a sum of rupees five thousand (Rs.5,000/-) from the salary of RW1 Dileep Khan, a sum of rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000/-) from the salary of RW2 Vinod Kumar and a sum of rupees two thousand (Rs.2,000/-) from the salary of RW3 Janardhanan Pillai totaling to a sum of rupees ten thousand which is to be paid as compensation to the victim Arif Muhammed. The above compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) will be paid to the boy within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Government is also directed to initiate departmental enquiry against RW1 to RW3 as well as other police officers who were present at the junction and in the jeep for suitable departmental action against them." 3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Commission, the State Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 22.4.2008 directing the Director General of Police to pay Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Commission as compensation to the fourth respondent's son and to deduct the sum of Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and the balance sum of Rs.5,000/- from the salary of Vinodkumar, Sub Inspector of Police and Janardhanan Pillai, Police Constable. As noticed earlier, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the said WA 1401/08 4 orders. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the findings of the Commission in Ext.P1 cannot be characterised as perverse and therefore cannot be interfered with in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Articled 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also held that the writ petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 order dated 22.11.2007 only on 6.6.2008 and that there is no explanation for the delay. As regards the challenge to Ext.P3, it was held that Ext.P3 is an order passed in implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P1 and therefore, the challenge to Ext.P3 is without any merit. 4. We have heard Sri.J.Jayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In our considered opinion, there is no merit in this Writ Appeal. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge the decision evidenced by Ext.P1 is rested on the evidence adduced before the Commission. The petitioner was also allowed to let in evidence. The Commission has after elaborately discussing the evidence adduced before it held that the writ petitioner and other police officers had unnecessarily apprehended and beaten up the fourth respondent's son. On the materials on record, it is not possible to hold that the findings in Ext.P1 are perverse. Further, it has come out in the enquiry held by the WA 1401/08 5 Commission that the writ petitioner and other police officers had violated the basic human rights of the fourth respondent's minor son and unnecessarily taken him to the police station and that he was beaten up there also. It is shocking that the officers like the petitioner who are bound to protect and uphold the basic human rights of the citizens turn violators of the law and resort to such cruel acts. On the materials available on record, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the findings in Ext.P1 cannot in any way be said to be perverse. Therefore, the challenge to Ext.P1 fails. With regard to Ext.P3, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, it is only an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commission and as the validity of Ext.P1 has been upheld by the learned Single Judge and as we are in agreement with the said decision, the challenge to Ext.P3 also fails. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed in- limine. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/7