CWP No. 22446 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22446 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.03.2011 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. M.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. *** RANJAN GOGOI, CJ (Oral) Having regard to the subject matter involved and as all the learned counsel for the parties have been heard, this writ petition is being finally disposed of by means of the present order. The petitioner i.e. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is a Government Company engaged in the refining, storage, sale and distribution of petroleum products. It is aggrieved by two orders dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to 'the Commission') by which cognizance on a CWP No. 22446 of 2010 2 complaint filed by respondent No. 4 with regard to alleged land grabbing by the writ petitioner has been entertained and report has been called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. We have read the complaint filed by respondent No. 4 and the order dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-10) impugned in the present writ petition. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the subject matter of the complaint could fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission having regard to the definition of Human Rights contained in Section 2 (d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Human Rights Commission being entitled to go into the matters of violation of Human Rights as defined under the Act, we fail to see how the allegation of land grabbing allegedly made by the writ petitioner could form the subject matter of an enquiry/adjudication by the Commission. We, therefore, unhesitatingly take the view that in the present case, the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction and the orders passed by it impugned in the writ petition were wholly without authority of law. The proceedings of the complaint filed by respondent No. 4 as well as the orders dated 01.07.2010/08.07.2010/13.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commission, therefore, are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 07, 2011 pj