HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by learned Chairperson of State Human Right Commission, Bihar, Patna by which and whereunder the learned State Human Right Commission, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission.”) directed the respondent no. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- to respondent no. 3 on account of death of her husband.

2. Petitioner no. 1 is Government of India undertaking and had taken the contract of anti-erosion work of river Ganga. In course of above stated work, petitioner no. 1 employed Avantika-GHRA (J.V.) of Hyderabad to execute the work on Raghopur-Kajikori in Naugachia Division. Petitioner no. 2 was site engineer of the aforesaid project. The above stated Avantika-GHRA (J.V.) of Hyderabad employed a local contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh to complete the anti-erosion work on the bank of Ganges. The above stated petty contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh employed the husband of respondent no. 3 in the above stated work but unfortunately, on 08.05.2009 while husband of respondent no. 3 was engaged in the work of transporting sand and stone for the above stated company, he was drowned in the river Ganga. Thereafter, on 06.08.2009 Kharik P.S. Case No. 136/2009 for the offences under Sections 304, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(x) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. Furthermore, on 10.08.2009, the respondent no. 3 gave a petition to Hon’ble Chief Minister of State of Bihar mentioning this fact that while her husband was engaged in anti-erosion work of river Ganga by petitioner no. 1, he drowned in the river Ganga but no compensation was paid to her. The aforesaid petition was sent to the State Commission and on the above stated petition, the State Commission took cognizance of the matter. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner no. 1 and reply to show cause was submitted by the petitioner no. 1 before the State Commission. The State Commission having conducted an enquiry and having heard the parties passed the impugned order in the manner as stated above.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State Commission had got no power to entertain the complaint because there was no violation of human rights. He further submitted that admittedly, Kharik P.S. Case No. 136/2009 was registered in respect of death of husband of respondent no. 3 and the aforesaid criminal case was pending at the time of passing impugned order but the State Commission took cognizance of the complaint of respondent no. 3 without taking any approval from the concerned court. He further submitted that the State Commission may send his recommendation, if the human rights are violated by the State or the agencies of the State and the State Commission had no power to issue direction to the petitioners for making payment to respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that State Commission did not make proper enquiry in respect of complaint of respondent no. 3 and not only this but also wrongly observed about so-called admission of the petitioners in the impugned order. He also submitted that according to case of the complainant itself, the deceased was working under employment of petty contractor, namely, Niranjan Singh and as a matter of fact, the deceased was never employed by petitioner no. 1 nor petitioner no. 1 had any control over the deceased and, therefore, the State Commission committed error in passing the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the above stated submissions arguing that petitioners participated in the proceeding before the State Commission and they never raised the point of jurisdiction before the State Commission and, therefore, they cannot raise the issue of jurisdiction of State Commission before this court. In support of his contentio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document