1. This writ petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order, dated 17.3.2011. The writ petition is filed by the father of Master R.Sudarshan, a student studying in 9th standard 'C' Section in the third and fourth respondents' school. The relief sought for by him in the writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent, i.e., Child Rights Commission constituted under the Central Act 4/2006, i.e., The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, to take action against the fifth respondent for violation of the child rights based on the complaint made by him, dated 25.1.2011 and to pass appropriate orders.

2. When the writ petition came up on 31.1.2011, this court directed private notice to be issued to the private respondents. In respect of the first respondent, the learned Government Advocate took notice.

3. Heard the arguments of Mr.N.L.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Suresh, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the Government, Mr.A.Immanuel, learned counsel appearing for third and fourth respondents and Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

I.A Parent's knock on the door:

4. The petitioner herein being the father of a student in the third respondent school, sent a complaint, dated 01.12.2010 to the third respondent with a copy marked to the fourth respondent seeking for taking a strict action against the fifth respondent. It was stated that the fifth respondent was creating problems and was behaving badly with the students and that the children's future were at stake. It was also stated that the children in the school including the petitioner's son were sent to the school only to learn good morals and virtues. But the fifth respondent used abusive language and behaved in an intolerable manner. It was stated that he may be having some psychological problems. The fifth respondent was behaving badly with the students. He used abusive and foul language in the classes and made derogatory remarks about all religions. In the said complaint, an incident that took place on 26.11.2010 was also referred to. It is unnecessary to deal with details of the complaint at this juncture.

5. It is suffice to state that the same petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.28828 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the respondents to take action on his complaint. In that writ petition, apart from the Director and Inspector of Matriculation Schools, the fourth respondent Principal was also a party. This court without going into the merits of the case, by an order, dated 23.12.2010 disposed of the writ petition. It had directed the Principal (R-4) to take action on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 01.12.2010 within a period of four weeks. A copy of the order was forwarded by the petitioner to the third and fourth respondents. The third respondent was also informed the fact that the petitioner's son was refusing to go to the school as he was upset by the language used by his Master (R-5). When the petitioner did not find any action, he also sent a complaint to the second respondent, Child Rights Commission setting forth these facts for an appropriate action. It is now claimed that since the earlier direction, dated 23.12.2010 was given against the Principal without issuing notice, a review application (defective stage) is also pending. But, however no orders were passed in the said review application.

6. In the meanwhile, when the matter came up on 4.2.2011, this Court passed the following interim order:

"After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides, including Mr.V.Selvaraj, Appearing for R5, this Court felt that appointment of a learned Senior Advocate of this Court to conduct a preliminary enquiry about R5 teacher would enable this Court to decide about further course.

According, b consent of all the parties conce