NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved