IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12798 of 2008(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KERALA POURAVAKASA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,K.PRATHAPAN, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, ROOM-10, HINDU MISSION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. (RESIDING AT: T.C.6/2540 (3),SREEVISAK, KODUNGANNUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.K.JITHIN SMT.V.J.SAFEENA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12798/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.604/93 DTD. 13.10.1993. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY ON 17.10.1999 INVITING APPLICATIONS FROM NGOS FOR REGISTRATION. P3:- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE INCLUSION OF NGOS IN ITS REGISTER. P4- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.3.06 OF IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT REGARDING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION. P6:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 27.9.07 OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. P6(a):- COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 27.9.07 OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.11.07 ADDRESSED TO CHIEF MINISTER. P7(a):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER DTD. 29.11.2007. P8:- COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P8(a):- COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM IST RESPONDENTSSS OFFICE. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4371/E2/HRC/08 DTD. 12TH MARCH, 2008. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 12798 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a voluntary organization formed for the protection of human rights. By Ext.P4, the Kerala State Human Rights Commission gave recognition to the petitioner by a decision taken by the Commission on 04.03.2006 and also decided to direct the petitioner to conduct a seminar on human rights during April, 2006. Subsequently the petitioner came across Ext.P5 paper report, whereby, the Kerala Human Rights Commission-the 1st respondent herein, has decided to cancel the affiliation of all voluntary organizations affiliated to the Kerala Human Rights Commission. Petitioner obtained Ext.P6 extract of the minutes of the meeting dated 27.09.2007 of the State Human Rights Commission, whereby the Commission has stated thus: “Moreover certain organizations are using vehicles by affixing the Board as 'Human Rights Commission' which W.P.(C)No. 12798 of 2008 -2- misleads the public. In view of the facts stated about the Commission have resolved to take a policy decision in the matter and decided to withdraw the recognition already given to various organizations and fresh requests in this regard need not be considered in future. The Commission has also directed to give wide publicity to this matter since the general public is under the bonafide belief that all these are done by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. Necessary direction should be given to the Police Authorities to be vigilant about this matter and take appropriate action against violation if any found.” 2. The petitioner submits that nobody has found that the petitioner has been guilty of any misdemeanour as stated in Ext.P6 and therefore the cancellation of the affiliation/recognition of the petitioner is illegal. Petitioner also submits that, petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard before taking such a drastic action. 3. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to Exhibit P-6 and quash the same to that extent it cancel petitioner's recognition. (ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to cancel petitioner's recognition of NGO with 1st respondent since there is no irregularities or complaint against petitioner. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P7 after hearing petitioner within a stipulated time period. W.P.(C)No. 12798 of 2008 -3- (iv) To issue a writ of mandamus to 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's review petition dated 20.11.2007 after hearing petitioner. (v) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to cancel recognition of only those NGOs who had committed foul play and irregularities. 4. Although the 1st respondent has entered appearance, they have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Therefore I have to take it that they are not disputing the facts stated therein. 5. On a reading of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993 I do not find there any provision for recognition of any voluntary /affiliation organization. The petitioner brings my attention to Section 12 (i) of the Act which states thus: 12 The Commission shall perform all or any of the following things: x x x x x x x x (i) encourage the efforts of non- Governmental organizations and institutions working in the field of human rights. Apparently, the Commission has evolved the procedure W.P.(C)No. 12798 of 2008 -4- of affiliating/recognising voluntary organisations on the strength of the above provision. 6. In Ext.P2 press report, I find that the Commission has invited applications for registration of non- Governmental organizations. Therefore I assume that the Commission has decided to give affiliation/recognition as per the said provision. From Ext.P4, I find that the Human Rights Commission had given recognition to the petitioner including the petitioner on the rolls of the Commission. From Ext.P6, I find that the Commission has decided to cancel the recognition of all non-Governmental organizations. After having given recognition, I am of opinion that before cancelling the recognition, that too for alleged misdemeanour, the concerned party ought to have been given minimum a hearing. Further the party ought to have been informed about the cancellation of the recognition. Petitioner contends that the petitioner has never been heard in the matter or informed about the same. Petitioner saw Ext.P5 paper report and obtained Ext.P6 W.P.(C)No. 12798 of 2008 -5- minutes of the meeting. Ext.P6 also does not contain any finding to the effect that the petitioner is specifically guilty of any misdemeanour in the matter. In fact Ext.P6 has been issued on the basis mere conjunctions and surmises and not on the basis of any definite finding as to the misdemeanour on any organisation for that matter. In the above circumstances I hold that, the petitioner continues to be an affiliated/recognized non-voluntary organization for the purpose of human rights and direct the 1st respondent to continue to encourage the efforts of the petitioner's organization working in the field of human rights notwithstanding Exts.P5 and P6. However this will not stand in the way of the Commission taking a decision on the basis of a definite finding arrived at after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/