HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIELF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.P. No.28448 of 2010 Dated 16-11-2010 Between: K.Subramanyam ……..Petitioner Vs. State Human Rights Commission, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIELF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.P. No.28448 of 2010 ORDER (Per HACJ) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner, who is one of the respondents in the complaint filed before the 1st respondent-State Human Rights Commission, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking Mandamus declaring the H.R.C.No.9956 of 2010 and the consequential notice issued thereof on the file of the 1st respondent-Commission, as illegal and arbitrary and quash the same without conducting any further investigation. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is no way concerned with the allegations contained in the complaint and further even before issuance of notice and without hearing him, the Commission has directed for investigation which is opposed to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the civil Court pointing out all the aspects. However, if he has any objection, he can as well file an appropriate counter affidavit or revision before the Commission seeking for hearing and appropriate orders, rather than approaching this Court. The petitioner, without availing such remedy, straight away approached this Court and filed this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, which can as well be appealable in due course of time, we do not find any merits. The writ petition lacks any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, at the admission stage. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent-Commission by filing appropriate applications, counter affidavits etc., and seek appropriate orders, if necessary, and on such filing of the same, they shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law on merits, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ Date: 16th November 2010 ____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO,J kvr