State Human Rights Commissions lack jurisdiction over civil property disputes absent specific human rights violations; such complaints are non-entertainable under regulations and must be pursued in civil or criminal courts.

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 31^st 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 the respondent No.3-complainant submitted that the Petition has been filed prematurely. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in St. Anthony High School, through its Manager vs. Uma Umakant Chodankar and Others , 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 476 learned counsel submitted that unless the measures under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (‘the said Act’, for short) are taken and only after a decision is taken affecting the rights of any party, the party aggrieved by such decision may pursue his/her/its legal remedy in accordance with law. Learned counsel relied upon paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of St. Anthony High School (supra) in support of his contentions which read thus :-

“4. Provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act require the Government to take a decision on the recommendations and to forward its comments on the report including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission is statutorily mandated to publish its entire inquiry report together with the comments of the Government as well action proposed to be taken or taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Commission.

5. We are of the considered opinion that unless the aforesaid measures are taken, no cause of action can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioner to challenge the recommendations of the Commission contained in its report dated 15.9.2014. The cause of action, if at all, could arise if the Government were to accept the report as well the recommendations of the Commission and the petitioner has to implement such recommendations.

6. In such view of the matter, the Rule stands discharged with a direction to the State Government to apply its mind to the report of the Commission as well as the recommendations contained therein and to take appropriate action in terms of Section 18 of the Act, within a period of a month from date of service of a copy of this order. Once any decision is taken affecting the rights of any party, the party aggrieved by such decision may pursue his/her/its legal remedy in accordance with law. We keep all the contentions open.”

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble