Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.KARNIK, GAUTAM A.ANKHAD
Dilip Lalchand Porwal Adult, Indian Inhabitant – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. S. KARNIK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. On an oral request made, the learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the respondent No.2 - The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission from the array of the respondents. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
3. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 31st May 2023 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (‘Commission’, for short). The Commission in paragraph 11 has issued the following directions :-
“11. Accordingly for the reasons discussed above the present complaint stands closed and disposed off with a direction that Commissioner of Police, Mira Bhayandar Vasai Virar Police Commissionerate and Municipal Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation do initiate steps for necessary compliance of the directions passed in para 9 & 10 supra above, by following the mandate provided u/s. 18(e) of the Act of 1993 r/w. Reg. 22 to 24 of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2011. Necessary compliance report be submitted within two months to the office of the Registrar, Legal Wing attached with this Commission.”
4. Learned counsel for th
The Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction in private property disputes and must not interfere in cases already pending in civil courts.
It is trite law that when evidence is required to be produced to adjudicate rights of the rival contentions, moreso in the nature of a civil dispute, the same cannot be entertained by the Commission,....
The court emphasized that human rights commission findings should not interfere with ongoing criminal prosecution, highlighting the need for clear evidence when linking law enforcement officers to al....
A quasi-judicial body must comply with principles of natural justice by providing a reasoned order and an opportunity for both parties to be heard before making a decision.
Human Rights Commission's recommendations binding but judicially reviewable; cannot direct compensation without inquiry evidence proving public servant negligence causing human rights violation via r....
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint beyond the limitation period specified in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
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....
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
