IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.1.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.6089 of 2006 P. MURUGAN [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9. 2 THE REGISTRAR STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PRATAB SING MALLIGAI ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-14. 3 MAGALIR STATE UDAVI MANDARAM NO.27 MOSQUE STREET CHEPAUK CHENNAI-5. [ RESPONDENTS ] Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in SHRC.Nos.6691 & 6692 of 2004 dated 27.09.2005 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.S.A.Hafiz For respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.R.Srinivas for R2 Ms.B.Poonguzhali for for M/s.Sudha Ramalingam for R3 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the recommendations of the second respondent State Human Rights Commission, made under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in S.H.R.C.Case Nos.6691 and 6692 of 2004. 2. The recommendations of the second respondent State Human Rights Commission is as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "This Commission recommends that Thiru Murugan, then the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the injured persons i.e. PWs 1 to 6 at Rs.2,500/- each and the Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay the compensation at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the salary of the Sub-Inspector of Police." 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent is that the writ petition is premature in nature. The state Government may or may not accept the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission made in S.H.R.C.Case Nos.6691 and 6692 of 2004. Even if the State Government accepts the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission, the amount of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner, as compensation to the injured persons, may not be recovered from the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner would be given an opportunity before any adverse order is passed against him, by the State Government. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had relied on the decision of this Court, dated 27.8.2010, made in W.P.Nos.21604 to 21607 of 2000 (RAJESH DAS I.P.S., Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENNAI AND OTHERS), in support of his contentions. 5. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature in nature. 6. The State Government may or may not accept the recommendations of the second respondent State Human Rights Commission, made in S.H.R.C.Case Nos.6691 and 6692 of 2004. Even if the compensation is paid to the claimants, who are the injured persons, the State Government may or may not choose to recover the same from the petitioner. In case, the State Government decides to recover the amount, paid as compensation, from the petitioner, it goes without saying that the petitioner would be given an opportunity by the State Government, at that stage. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the second respondent is directed to return the amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand), said to have been deposited by the petitioner, on 17.3.2006, by way of a demand draft, bearing No.535855, dated 15.3.2006, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.6580 of 2006, in W.P.No.6089 of 2006, to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The first respondent, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, is expected to consider the recommendations of the second respondent State Human Rights Commission, dated 27.9.2005, made in S.H.R.C.Case Nos.6691 and 6692 of 2004 and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. Connected W.P.M.P.No.6580 of 2006 is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To 1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9. 2 THE REGISTRAR STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PRATAB SING MALLIGAI ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-14. 3 MAGALIR STATE UDAVI MANDARAM NO.27 MOSQUE STREET CHEPAUK CHENNAI-5. 1 cc To Mr.S.A.Hafiz, Advocate, SR.3761. 1 cc To M/s.Sudha Ramalingam, Advocate, SR.3756. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.4022. Writ Petition No.6089 of 2006 BVN(CO) RVL 07.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/