P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved