Civil Writ Petition No.8873 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8873 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.5.2011 Surinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Punjab State Human Rights Commission and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the petitioner ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks quashing of direction dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission as under:- “The Commission, therefore, recommends to the Punjab State Government under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of injuries to his son and damage to his car, with liberty to recover this amount from Surinder Singh Head Constable No.2019/PTA (respondent). In addition to it, suitable departmental action against him for his grave misconduct is also recommended. Further, the person sent up for trial (not the real culprit) was 'discharged' vide order dated 10.11.2009. The DGP, Punjab would direct the SSP, Patiala to re-open the case, find out the real culprit and send him up for trial in the case which is already registered under FIR No.159 Civil Writ Petition No.8873 of 2011 -2- *** dated 16.7.2009 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC in Police Station, Patran. Action taken report of awaited by 20.12.2010.” Respondent no.2 made a complaint alleging that on 20.5.2008, his son along with his friends was traveling in his car. At 9.30 A.M. driver of a truck negligently struck his truck against the car resulting in injuries to the occupants of the car and damage to the car. The truck driver fled away from the scene of occurrence. He was intercepted by the villagers. Complainant approached the petitioner for action against the said driver but the petitioner let off the truck driver for extraneous reasons. The Commission sought report from the SSP who in turn got enquiry conducted by the DSP. The DSP in his report, indicted the petitioner. The petitioner was given due opportunity of being heard and thereafter the Commission formed an opinion about his complicity. Finding the version of the complainant to be acceptable, the Commission held that there was violation of human rights by the petitioner who was a public servant and accordingly recommended for grant of compensation and departmental action against the petitioner as stated above. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of medical examination and medico legal report, version of receiving injuries could not be believed. The driver was discharged by the competent Court and the petitioner had performed his duty properly. He also relied upon the report of enquiry earlier conducted against the petitioner holding that fault was not of the truck driver but of the car driver. We are unable to accept the submissions. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Civil Writ Petition No.8873 of 2011 -3- *** Constitution, this Court does not sit in appeal over the order of a statutory authority. We are concerned with the compliance of principle of natural justice and reasonableness or legality of the order. In the present case, petitioner has been given due hearing by the Commission and the order of the Commission is not shown to be arbitrary, perverse or illegal In view of above, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 19, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge