IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.1081 of 2010 Ful Kumari Devi w/o Lagan Sahani, resident of village- Pachtaki Ram, P.S. Bairgania, District- Sitamarhi. ..................Petitioner. Versus 1.State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Sitamarhi. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar Dumara, District- Sitamarhi. 5. The Officer Incharge, Bairgania Police Station, District- Sitamarhi. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 7. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut division, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Chief Election commissioner, Bihar, Patna. ..............Respondents. ------------------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar. For the State : Mr. Prashant Pratap, G.P.6. Mr. Gyan Shankar. For the Election Commission : Mr. J.P.Karn. 16 21.11.2011 We have heard this matter on several dates. It is a peculiar case, which, in our opinion, requires a thorough investigation and supervision. We feel that in this summary jurisdiction it would be wholly inapt for this Court to undertake this exercise. In view of the facts , as prima facie found and the reasons indicated hereunder, we are of the view that the Bihar State Human Rights Commission would be the appropriate forum for the petitioner to vindicate her grievance and get relief to which she was entitled. The writ petitioner is the wife of one Lagan Sahani, who was enrolled as a reserved Home Guard. He had been so enrolled way back in 1976 and from time to time as per 2 exigency used to be recruited for odd jobs. In 2009 when mobilization of Human Resources for conduct of Parliament elections were being undertaken, the services of the said Lagan Sahani were requisitioned from Sitamarhi where he resided and he was directed to report at Nawadah for being assigned election duty. Along with him, a large number of other similarly situated persons were also requisitioned. The petitioner’s husband apart from others, it is not in dispute, drew an advance amount, which he was entitled to pursuant to this requisition at Sitamarhi. All such requisitioned persons were then travelled to Nawada by train and accordingly composite travel warrant was drawn. The journey from Sitamarhi to Nawadah inured changing at about four places but it appears that Lagan Sahani did not turn up at Nawadah for assignment of any specific duty. It is also not in dispute that he did not put any claim for final payment for the duty he was required to perform. When the elections were over and he did not return, his son and the petitioner started making enquiry. Ultimately when nothing was done this writ petition was filed. Upon the writ petition being filed, the railway police first instituted a Sanha and started making enquiry and ultimately a formal case being Missing Person Case was instituted by the railway. We have not gone through the enquiry reports, which are still being conducted but learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to some part of the reports 3 wherein it appears that Lagan Sahani was seen by some persons at railway station when all such requisitioned persons were required to move at Nawadah. Thereafter there is no fact found what happened to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the resolution of the State Government in the Department of Finance being Resolution No. 2796, dated 1.4.2009 (Annexure –R to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.8). He refers to para 3 and para 4 thereof to emphasize the fact that the State Government has resolved pursuant to the direction of the Election Commission of India that a person is to be treated on election duty as soon as he leaves his residence/office to report for any election related duty including training and until he reaches back his residence/office after performance of his election related duty. He submits that it would accordingly be treated that Lagan Sahani was on election duty and did not return. The State was thus liable to account for him and produce him. it is under those circumstances the writ petition was filed. Of course, there would be other consequences that may blow if the facts are found to be in favour of the petitioner We are not concerned with this. At our instance the Chief Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna was made a party. Various counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed. In our opinion, it requires a better supervision and thorough investigation. It is under these facts we think that it is 4 appropriate for the petitioner to move the Bihar State Human Rights Commission, who would take necessary action in this regard including getting the matter enquired into or take on record the investigation and the materials which are already available and follow up the matter to its logical conclusion. We thus direct the petitioner to immediately move the State Human Rights Commission with all materials that have now come on record and we request the Commission to take up the matter at the earliest and take a decision appropriate to the facts as found by it at the earliest. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ proceedings stands disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh,J)