Back
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, D. V. S. S. SOMAYAJULU
Panja Bharat Mataji – Appellant
Versus
Home Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA,CJ. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of Memo C.No.7164/A6/2004 of the 3rd respondent dtd. 6/6/2005, issued pursuant to the recommendations of A.P. State Human Rights Committee, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and to set aside the same.
2. Petitioner No.1 was working as S.I. of Police, II Town Police Station, Eluru, whereas petitioner No.2 was working as A.S.I. of Police of the same Police Station, at the relevant point of time. Around 11.20 p.m. on 1/11/2003, petitioner No.1 who was on night rounds along with a constable, reached Devi Restaurant and found that it was still open. Since the restaurant was required to be closed by 11.00 p.m., as per the Circular dtd. 1/7/2003 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District, petitioner No.1 instructed the owner of the restaurant to close it. At the same time, he instructed petitioner No.2 to take the persons whose shops were kept open, to the Police Station.
3. One Mothukuri Nagabhushanam who was brought to the Police Station died and Cr.No.290 of 2003 under Sec. 304 of IPC
The Human Rights Commission has the power to recommend compensation but not to direct its payment.
The Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.
The National Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and lacks the adjudicatory power to issue binding directions, orders, or writs to governm....
Point of Law : Order impugned has no legs to stand on and being one without jurisdiction, warrants interference at hands of this Court.
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to act on the complaint due to the one-year limitation under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and failed to provide due process to the petitione....
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint beyond the limitation period specified in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
