1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, the Chief Engineer (Electrical) (petitioner no. 1) and Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (petitioner no. 2), assailing an order dated 27.07.2026 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission").

3. By virtue of the impugned order, the Commission has directed payment of Rs.10,00000/-, in addition to the earlier amount of Rs.1,65,000/-, to the victim of electrocution. The factual matrix indicates that the incident of electrocution took place in the year 2011 and an application seeking compensation was also made in the same year. Payment of compensation was made in two instalments, the first being in the year 2017 for a sum of Rs.65,000/- (which was paid to the father of the victim) and the second being made on 13.02.2025 to the victim, who is respondent no. 4 herein. It is to be noted that the payment to the victim was made subsequent to the filing of the application before the Commission, as the said application had been filed in the year 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to argue that the complaint before the Commission was not maintainable on the ground of limitation as the act constituting violation of human rights had taken place in the year 2011, whereas the petition before the Commission was filed in the year 2024.

5. Per contra, Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that the act of violation of Human Rights in the present case is the non-payment of compensation itself for the electrocution that was caused by the petitioner Corporation. He submits that the violation was continuing in nature and this fact is supplemented by the factual matrix, which indicates that a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made by the petitioners subsequent to the filing of the petition before the Commission. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. National Human Rights Commission, 2010 SCC OnLine All 1123.

6. We have examined the contentions raised by both the parties and are of the view that the violation of human rights in the present case was a continuing violation as the petitioners did not make payment of the compensation as required under law. Furthermore, the very act of making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- after the filing of the complaint amounted to an acknowledgement under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Furthermore, even Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which deals with continuing breaches and torts, would apply in the present case.

7. It is the statutory duty of the Power Corporation to maintain the transmission lines in such a manner that the lives of people are not exposed to dangers and threats arising from such transmission lines. Where the officials of the Power Corporation act negligently, the human rights of citizens stand violated. Hence, the second writ petition is also a case of violation of human rights, and no error has been committed by the Commission in proceeding under the 1993 Act.

8. It is relevant to note the object as well as the scheme of the Act, as delineated by its various provisions. The preamble of the Act contains the key words "for better protection of human rights". Thus, the object behind enacting the Act was to constitute the National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commi