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 ex-parte injunction against the petitioner in O.S. No. 1365/2019 on the file of Principal Munsiff”s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said injunction order was also vacated with costs, vide Exhibit P3 order.

3. Pursuant to the above, the 2nd respondent and her henchmen, continued obstruction against the construction made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner obtained a counter injunction against the 2nd respondent (Exhibit P4), which is still in force. In spite of Exhibit-P4, the 2nd respondent and her henchmen obstructed the construction. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court seeking for police protection, and vide Exhibit P5 judgment dated 4.4.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 8236 of 2019, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Civil Court and seek for appropriate remedy.

4. Subsequently, petitioner obtained Exhibit-P6 protection order dated 24.9.2019 from the court below against the 2nd respondent and her men. Petitioner has also filed an application for renewal of Exhibit-P1 permit. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent has clandestinely approached the 1st respondent and filed Exhibit-P8 petition dated 11.12.2019, by suppressing all the above material facts and obtained Exhibit-P9 order dated 20.06.2019, behind the back of the petitioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

5. On 04.12.2021, we passed the following order:

“xxx xxx xxx

4. We have gone through the pleading and grounds raised. Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for admission.

Admit. Issue notice to 2nd respondent returnable in two weeks.

In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay of the operation of impugned order.”

6. Smt. Mini V.A. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that Exhibit-P9 order passed by the 1st respondent is, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the 2nd respondent has clandestinely approached the 1st respondent and filed Exhibit P8 petition, by suppressing all the material facts and obtained Exhibit P9 order.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court in Sivanandan T.P. and Another vs. Corporation of Kochi and Others, 2020 (1) KHC 270.

8. Referring to Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Exhibit-P8 complaint does not come under the purview of human rights, as defined under Section 2(d), which means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution of India or embodied in the international Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the allegations in the complaint that due to the