IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18145 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- G. JABAL, HOUSE NO.11/389, ATHAKKA VILAKOM, KADAKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, NEW DELHI. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKIZHU, ATTINGAL. 6. MR.K.S.RAJENDRAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18145/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT 13.3.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R2 ORDER NO.D6/89363/04 DT 9.3.06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.25.3.2006. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R3 DT.31.10.2001. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF LETTER NO.D12/55961/98 DT 12.1.99. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF ORDER DT 30.8.2004. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 22/10/2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18145 OF 2007 (I) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as Circle Inspector of Police. While so, he received Exts.P1, P2 and P3. Ext.P1 is a notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The notice was issued pursuant to Ext.P2 proceedings of the Inspector General of Police. From Ext.P2, petitioner came to know that one Sri.Xavier Paul, had made a complaint to the 4th respondent that, on 23/5/96, the petitioner picked up the 6th respondent and mercilessly beaten him up. It was alleged that by the aforesaid misdeeds of the petitioner, human rights available to the 6th respondent was violated, and that the 4th respondent, the National Human Rights Commission entertained the complaint and passed an order under Section 18 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and directed State Government to pay interim relief of Rs.10,000/- to the victim with liberty to the State to recover the same from the officers responsible. It is stated that accordingly, by Ext.P3, payment was made and sanction was granted for recovering the WPC 18145/07 :2 : said amount from the petitioner. It is challenging these proceedings the writ petition is filed. 2. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission, and therefore, the order under Section 18(3) was passed in his absence and without notice to him. Although along with the counter affidavit filed, respondents have produced copy of the proceedings of the National Human Rights Commission and other related documents, from those documents also, it is evident that the petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission and that the order under Section 18(3) was passed without notice to him. This is clearly illegal, and for that reason, I am inclined to set aside the proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.10,000/- evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P1 and P2 to the extent recovery is proposed to be effected from the petitioner. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the State getting the petitioner also impleaded in the proceedings WPC 18145/07 :3 : before the National Human Rights Commission and taking action for recovery of the amount paid in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp