Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission, Patna in File No. 1791 of 2016.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that an agreement dated 11.11.2014 was executed in between the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and B.S.A. Corporation Limited for supplying manpower on contract basis for various posts in the Urban Local Bodies and District Urban Development Agencies, across the State of Bihar. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for some time the work of the private agency i.e. B.S.A. Corporation Limited had been satisfactory, however, subsequently there were lot of complaints with regard to irregularities being committed in supply of manpower, hence a Three Men Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter. The said Three Men Committee had then submitted a joint enquiry report dated 16.09.2016, wherein as far as the B.S.A. Corporation Limited, Pune is concerned, it was observed that as per the agreement the said agency has to first make payment to the employees supplied by it, whereafter it is required to submit bills and then payment is to be made by the Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the contract of the aforesaid B.S.A. Corporation Limited has to come an end on 31.10.2015 and in case the said company has any claim, it has to either invoke clause 9.2 of the Agreement i.e the dispute settlement clause or the dispute resolution clause, contained in “General conditions of contract” or take recourse to such remedies as are otherwise available under the law for enforcement of the terms and conditions of the Agreement in question. It is further submitted that manpower was supplied by the aforesaid B.S.A. Corporation Limited on a purely contractual basis and such employees working at various locations in the State of Bihar, supplied by the said company were to be paid wages by the said company, thus in case the employees have any claim with regard to unpaid wages, the claim would lie as against the said company and not against the petitioners inasmuch as they are not the employees of the State Government but that of the aforesaid company. Nonetheless, it is submitted that the respondent no. 3 had approached the State Human Rights Commission, Patna with a prayer that since his salary for the period April, 2015 upto 09.03.2016 has not been paid by the petitioners, they be directed to pay the same. Consequently, the Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission has passed the impugned order dt. 21.09.2016 directing the petitioners to pay the unpaid salary to respondent no. 3 and other similarly situated persons along with interest @ 10 % per annum.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations, 1994’), which is reproduced herein below: –

“9. Complaints not ordinarily entertainable. – The Commission may dismiss in limini complaints of the following nature: –

(i) illegible;

(ii) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous;

(iii) trivial or frivolous;

(iv) barred under section 36(1) of the Act;

(v) barred under section 36(2) of the Act;

(vi) allegation is not against any public servant;

(vii) the issue raised relates to civil dispute, such as property rights, contractual obligations & the like;

(viii) the issue raised relates to service matters;

(ix) the issue raised relates to labour/industrial disputes;

(x) allegations do not make out any specific violation of human rights;

(xi) matter is sub-judice before a Court/Tribunal;

(xii) matter is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the Commission;

(xiii) where it is only a copy of the complaint addressed to some other authority;

(xiv) the matter is ou