IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13001 of 2009(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA CO.LTD. “PLANTATION HOUSE” , PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.S.RAMAKRISHNA SARMA. BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA MR.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN MR.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 2. SOMAN VADAKKEKKARA, VALLIYANKAVU, PALOORKKAVU P.O. 3. GANGADHARAN, KANNAD, VALLIYANKAVU, PALOORKKAVU P.O. 4. BINU VIJAYAN, ARAKKAL, VALLIYANKAVU, PALOORKKAVU P.O. 5. VINOD, PLAMOOTTIL, VALLIYANKAVU, PALOORKKAVU P.O. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 13001/2009-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION HRMP NO.1054/2008/E2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RECEIVED ON 28/02/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16/06/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/02/1987 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IN AS.NO.329/1985. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/02/1992 PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MGISTRATE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM IN M.C.NO.67/1983. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22/04/2008 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/07/2008 FILED BY THE 2ND TO 5TH RESPONDENTS TO EXHIBIT P2 STATEMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.13001 of 2009-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner challenges the proposal of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission to make a local inspection in relation to Ext.P1 complaint. The complainants therein appear to project a case that there is violation of human rights in relation to insistence on payment of fee and also by placing certain restrictions on the freedom of movement to a place which, according to the complainants, is a temple which is a place of worship. The question whether such a right asserted by the complainants amounts to a human right for the purpose of Human Rights Act and the further question as to whether the complaint has been made within the time limit prescribed and also as to whether such a right could be enforced as against the petitioner's claim that the entire WP(C)13001/09 -: 2 :- property is its holding, are matters on which the Human Rights Commission has not expressed. It is premature for this Court, if at all it is called upon, to conclude that the Human Rights Commission should desist from proceeding to consider the case further. The repository of the powers under the Act is statutorily made on a high office and persons who have held very high office hold the jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act. It is not appropriate for this Court to step in, at any rate, at this point of time. 2.It is also pointed out that various other litigations have ended in favour of the petitioner and that the report of the Collector is also in favour of the petitioner. I also do not deem it appropriate to direct the Human Rights Commission to pass an order on the aforesaid issue, though such a particular relief is pressed by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, without prejudice to WP(C)13001/09 -: 3 :- the right of the petitioner to pursue its objections before the Human Rights Commission, this writ petition is dismissed, without expressing anything on merits. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/050609