IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32058 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- AJITHKUMAR,'SREEKRISHNANILAYAM', AGASTHYACODU, ANCHAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN 695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM, PIN 691 001. 3. SRI.SODARAN, S/O.KANNAN, SREEKRISHNANILAYAM, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL P.O, PIN 691 306, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI. VIJAYARAKHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 32059/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 32058 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE RAJIV GANDHI SHIROMANI AWARD ISSUED BY THE CITIZENS INTEGRATION PEACE SOCIETY. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED FROM THE R.T.O., PUNALUR TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECCT OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF KL.02E.8038 TIPPER LORRY. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED FROM THE R.T.O. OFFICE, PUNALUR TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECCT OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF KL.02E.8039 TIPPER LORRY. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.960/2011 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.05.2011 FILED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHAL IN CRIME NO. 227/2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO.227/2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25.03.2011 IN WP(C)NO.8310/2011. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.05.2010 IN W.P(C)NO.14254/2010. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.16337/2011 DATED 11.07.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.219/2011 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.201/2011 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P NO. 2418/2001 DATED 12.06.2001. EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2011 IN HRMP NO.2122/2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 32058 & 32059 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these writ petitions is against the order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No.2122 of 2011. A copy of this order has been produced as Ext.P13 in WPC 32058/11 and Ext.P6 in WPC 32059/11. 2. A petition was filed by the 3rd respondent in these writ petitions against the petitioners who are his son and son-in-law respectively. It appears that there are various litigations between the parties in which judgments have been rendered by this court and also by the civil court. It is in spite of these that the 3rd respondent filed the aforesaid application in which Ext.P13 order was passed. 3. The common grievance that is raised in these writ petitions is that the aforesaid order has been passed by the first respondent violating S.16 of the Protection of W.P.(C) Nos. 32058 & 32059 OF 2011 :2 : Human Rights Act in as much as the petitioners were not given notice. 4. I have considered the submissions made. 5. Taking note of the various disputes that are pending between the parties, the Human Rights Commission by Ext.P13, ordered thus: “This petition is closed with direction to the Commissioner of Police, Kollam to afford police protection to petitioner, whenever that is needed in the light of the order of the Honourable High Court in OP 2418/2001.” 6. Therefore all that has been ordered by the Human Rights Commission is that police protection as ordered by this court in the judgment in OP 2418/2001 shall be afforded to the petitioner as and when it is needed. Therefore, apart from reiterating the directions of this court in the judgment in the original petition mentioned above, the Human Rights Commission did not pass any order of its own. W.P.(C) Nos. 32058 & 32059 OF 2011 :3 : 7. Thus no order prejudicial to the petitioners has been passed and only if such an order is passed, then only Human Rights Commission should have issued notice to the petitioners herein. In such circumstances I am not inclined to think that the Human Rights Commission committed any illegality in passing the order referred to above. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this order is likely to be misused to violate the orders of injunction passed by the civil court. In my view, Ext.P13 order does not give raise to such a possibility and if at all any such situation arises, it is upto the petitioners to take appropriate action in the matter. Hence these writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I do so. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge