IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28753 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN UNNITHAN, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, KALLUMTHAZHAM, P.O.KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.N.SETHUNATH, SUB INSPECTOR, OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KILIKOLLOOR. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28753/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner as early as on 13.5.2002. By the said order, Human Rights Commission noting that the petitioner was not present before the Commission, had dismissed his complaint for default. I had requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to get instructions as to why there was such extensive delay on the part of the petitioner, in approaching this Court, challenging Ext.P7 which was passed on 13.5.2002. 2. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner explaining the reasons which allegedly contributed to the delay, on 17.11.2008. I have gone through the said affidavit and in paragraph 5 thereof, petitioner aged 46, submits that if his memory is correct, he has personally gone and enquired about the follow up of his complaint in the office of the Commission in the year 2003 and that he was directed W.P.(C).28753/2008 2 to contact over telephone to ascertain the position of his complaint and he used to contact at least once in a month. It seems that the petitioner continued to do so for more than four years. He is seen to have filed Ext.P11 complaint on 1.6.2007. 3. I am unable to accept the reason put forward by the petitioner, attempting to explain the gross delay in having approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order. Remedy of the petitioner should have been to first approach the Commission pointing out the reasons for his absence on 13.5.2002. That is also not seen to have been done within a reasonable time. There is unexplained delay and lapse on the part of the petitioner. I do not think this is a fit case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is hence dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs