Back
S. MANIKUMAR, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
BABU R. S/O RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
CHAIRPERSON, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. Being aggrieved by Exhibit P9 order passed by the 1st respondent, viz. the Chairperson of Kerala State Human Rights Commission, dated 20.6.2019, in H.R.M.P. No. 213/11/2019, by which, the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation was directed to proceed further, as per the notice issued to the opposite party and dispose of the complaint, instant writ petition is filed praying to call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit-P9 order dated 20.06.2019 from the 1st respondent and to quash the same, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
2. Short facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that; petitioner has obtained Exhibit-P1 building permit dated 27.9.2016 from the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, and started construction work. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 2049/2018 and obtained an ex-parte interim injunction. The petitioner filed a detailed objection with 9 documents and the court below vacated the interim injunction vide Exhibit P2 order. Subsequently, 2nd respondents fraternal niece has filed another suit, under the instance of respondent No. 2, and obtained another e
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 Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction in private property disputes and must not interfere in cases already pending in civil courts.
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 c....
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.
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner cannot initiate parallel proceedings on the same subject matter by filing a writ petition while already having initiated an appea....
The main legal point established is that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction in service matters as per its regulations and statutory provisions.
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
