IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17050 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DILEEP KHAN, S/O.SHOUDHANNAN RAWTHER, AGED 36 YEARS, ADDL. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THAHA HUSSAIN, AI NOOR, MANGALAPURAM, THONNACKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17050 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P.1 and P3 orders. Ext. P1 is the order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, in a petition filed by the 4th respondent seeking compensation for illegal police action of the petitioner and others on his minor son, resulting in injuries to the minor son directing payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the 4th respondent and also directing the appropriate authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and others. 2. I have considered the arguments of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner seeks interference with Ext. P1 as also Ext. P3 purely on the ground that Ext. P1 has been passed on a wrong appreciation of evidence. Ext. P1 is dated 22-11-2007. The petitioner is challenging the same on 6-6-2008, without any plausible explanation for the delay. Further, the question involved is purely a matter of appreciation of evidence. On a reading of Ext. P1, I find that the Commission has elaborately discussed the evidence before it and had given cogent reasons for the conclusion arrived at. I do not find anything therein even remotely suggesting any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Without such finding of perversity, I cannot interfere with Ext. P1 in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext. P1. Ext. P3 being a consequential order, the challenge against Ext. P3 is also without any merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.