Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5  ||  Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator  ||  SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A)  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9    

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission and Ors. - (High Court of Chhattisgarh) (07 Nov 2017)

State Human Rights Commission is only a recommendatory body and has no power and jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation.

MANU/CG/0651/2017

Human Rights

The present petition is filed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Petitioner) for challenging the order passed by the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission (Commission), whereby the Commission has directed the petitioner to pay the compensation towards illegal and forceful installation of six electricity polls and electricity line in the agricultural field owned by Respondent No.4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Commission has no jurisdiction and authority to grant compensation and it can only make a recommendation under Section 19(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Act of 1993) to the concerned authority or Government to make payment of compensation and damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary.

The Court after careful perusal of various provisions and precedents decided by the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts has observed that after completion of an inquiry if the Commission finds that inquiry discloses the violation of human rights it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant, but the Commission has no authority and jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation. The Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body and it only makes a recommendation to the concerned authority or Government for enforcement of its recommendation. It has no adjudicatory jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation. Therefore, the impugned order is vulnerable to the extent of directing payment of compensation and hereby set aside. The said order will be treated only as a recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission. However, it will open to the petitioner to consider the said recommendation in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent sketched hereinabove.

Relevant : Section 19(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

Tags : HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION   COMPENSATION   RECOMMENDATORY AUTHORITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved