srk １ pil-22-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.22 OF 2009 Pushkar Madhav Damle ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr.Ashish Chawan for the petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Thursday, July 22, 2010 P .C. In this petition purporting to be PIL, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus calling upon the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (for short `MSHRC') to explain the alleged irregularities, improprieties and abuse of law at the instance of MSHRC and its office bearers. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction that this court may conduct judicial enquiry into such alleged irregularities and has prayed for a direction to take action against the erring/defaulting members/official of the Commission and the State of Maharashtra. 2. One of the members of the Commission has been joined as respondent No.3. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the State Government which is filed by Mr. Ruprao Natthuji Deshmukh, Joint Secretary, Home Department and the affidavit-in-reply is also filed by respondent No.3. 3. It transpires that the petitioner was himself a complainant before the srk ２ pil-22-09 State Human Rights Commission and his complaint was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ petition before this court and the Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has referred to this fact in para 4 of the petition and thereafter, the petitioner has made the following averments in para 5 of the petition:- "5. The petitioner states and submits that, his interaction with the machinery of MSHRC prompted the Petitioner to dig out more information pertaining to the functioning, implementation and overall administration of MSHRC in general and the organs of the State connected with MSHRC in particular. The Petitioner states and submits that, the RTI Act, a potent tool in the hands of a common man like him was constructively utilized by him to call for documents and information from the State which has revealed shocking and startling facts which form the subject matter of his petition." 4. The petitioner states and submits that the interaction with the machinery of MSHRC prompted the petitioner to dig out more information pertaining to the functioning, implementation and overall administration of MSHRC in general and the organs of the State connected with MSHRC in particular. 5. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No.3 was conducting private enquiries outside the office hours and thus, committed financial irregularities. It is pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department that the petitioner's complaint in this behalf was examined and it came to light that though respondent No.3 had conducted lectures on the methodology to be followed in the conduct of a departmental enquiry, yet, he was not paid any remuneration for the same by the said Consumer Guidance Society. Similarly, the petitioner has made other similar allegations. However, it is pointed out in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Government that the respondent No.2-State Human Rights Commission has been submitting its srk ３ pil-22-09 annual reports to the Government as contemplated by section 20((1) of the Act and that the Government has been submitting such annual reports to the State Legislature. It is further submitted that the accounts of State Human Rights Commission are being audited and no irregularity has been brought to the notice of the State Government. 6. The petitioner has also contended that expenses of medical treatment for respondent No.3 have been claimed. It is pointed out in the reply affidavit that such expenses have been reimbursed in accordance with the Government rules. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.