IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 30749 of 2001(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, SARDAR PATTEL BHAVAN. 2. MRS. LALITHA, MOTHER OF RAJESH, D/O. THANKAMMA, CHEMMANUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MENILAM, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, R2 BY ADV. MR.N.M.SIDHIC. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 30749/2001-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 17/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/05/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/03/2001 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 12/03/2001 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/08/2001 SENT BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 30749 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an original petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P5 proceedings of the National Human Rights Commission. By Ext. P1 order in a complaint filed before it, the Commission passed an interim order directing the State Government to initiate criminal prosecution against the police officers found guilty of various acts of high-handedness in the matter of illegal arrest, detention and causing physical and mental torture to one Rajesh in unlawful police custody and for implicating him in a false case of theft and directing the State to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the victim Rajesh as immediate interim relief for his suffering at the hands of the police, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be paid by way of draft and to deposit the balance amount in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank and only interest accruing on the deposited amount was to be paid to the victim Mr. Rajesh every month. On receipt of that order, the State Government sent a letter dated 6-7- 2000 to the National Commission for reconsideration of the order. The Commission, on the basis of that letter, posted the matter to 12- 3-2001 on which date, the victim and his mother were present. There was no representation on behalf of the State of Kerala. Notwithstanding the same, the Commission considered the matter in detail on the basis of the letter dated 6-7-2000 and passed Ext. P3 order holding that there is no ground for recalling its earlier order, Ext. P1. Subsequently, Ext. P4 show cause notice was issued, which was followed by Ext. P5 letter requesting the Government to comply with the earlier directions and to file compliance report. Those proceedings are under challenge in this original petition on the ground that the State was not given adequate opportunity to present its case and that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction. O.P.. No. 30749/01 -: 2 :- 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. 3. The jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission to hear the complaint in question is not in dispute before me. The only contention is regarding the jurisdiction to pass interim orders. Section 18(3) of the Act reads as follows: “18. Steps after inquiry- The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely, xx xx xx (3) recommend to the concerned Government or authority for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary. xx xx xx” I am satisfied that the Section gives ample powers to the National Commission to recommend immediate interim relief, which only has been done in this case. As far as the contention regarding the lack of opportunity to the State Government to present its case is concerned, I do not find any merit in this contention. First of all, the orders are only in the nature of interim relief. Secondly, after Ext. P1 order was passed, the State Government had sent a letter on the basis of which the matter was heard on 12-3-2001. It is not disputed before me that on receipt of Ext. P1, the Government of Kerala had, by letter dated 6-7-2000, requested the Commission to recall its recommendation. It was pursuant thereto, the matter was posted on 12-3-2001. The contention of the State is that no notice regarding the posting was issued to the Government. Admittedly, the Government was issued with Ext. P1 order and the Government by letter dated 6-7-2000 requested the Commission to recall its recommendation. Therefore, it was for the State to ascertain the date of posting and be present O.P.. No. 30749/01 -: 3 :- before the Commission on the date of posting. Even otherwise, having been appraised of the pendency of the complaint, the State had a duty to ascertain the date of posting of the complaint, especially since what have been passed are only interim orders. As such, I do not find any merit in the contention regarding want of opportunity to the State to present its case. This is a case where a small boy has been brutally manhandled by the police officials on allegations of theft. Later, the police themselves deleted the name of the victim from the list of accused in the charge sheet. The Commission found that there was no material at all to connect the victim with the theft in question. The order was passed by a Commission presided over by none other than a renowned former Chief Justice of India. I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/-S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/