IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3181 of 2026 ==========================================================

RAY BANQUET AND HOTELS PVT.LTD. & ANR.

Versus GUJARAT STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR. NANDISH CHUDGAR for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Date : 06/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have approached this Court by under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by calling in question the legality and validity of the proceedings being HRC/2026/ADC/06/LEGAL-3 pending before Gujarat State Human Rights Commission.

2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioners, tenaciously submitted that while initiating proceedings against the petitioners under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission has not complied with the directions and/or guidelines issued by this Court in case of Mahendra Shanabhai Patel and Ors. vs. The District Magistrate and Ors. in Special Civil Application No.8914 of 2025.

3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that this Court has in no uncertain terms issued guidelines for the purpose of initiating and conducting the proceedings under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, by the Commission. For the sake of brevity, the same are reproduced hereinbelow:

[21] Before concluding the present proceedings, and while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court considers it appropriate to issue certain directions and guidelines regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of powers by the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. These directions are issued to ensure that, in future, the powers under the Act are not abused and the process of law is not misused. The Court deems it necessary to lay down such guidelines to effectively achieve the object and purpose of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as set out hereunder:

(i) Before taking suo motu cognizance and / or upon any complaint of complainant, the Human Rights Commission shall conduct a primary scrutiny to ascertain whether allegation prima facie discloses any violation of human rights, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. For exercising suo motu powers, the Commission shall have to be more vigilant and such exercise of powers shall not be on a casual information, but shall be based on prima facie trustworthy material and disclosure thereof shall have to be recorded in the order by which suo motu cognizance is taken;

(ii) While taking cognizance and / or entertaining complaint(s) alleging violation of human rights, the Commission shall take into consideration the Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 and consider whether the allegation (s) / complaint(s) falls in any of the provisions of Regulation 9 of the Regulations 1994;

(iii) The Human Rights Commission shall not entertain any complaint which predominantly involve private civil dispute including the disputes relating to title, possession, succession, partition, Release Deed, Contracts or other matters squarely falling within the domain of the Civil Court unless there is a demonstrable involvement of the State action resulting in a recognizable human rights violation;

(iv) The Human Rights Commission shall have to seek declaration from the complainant with regard to any ongoing proceeding before any Court of law for the same subject matter. If it appears that there is a proceeding on going, the Commission shall refrain itself from proceeding further usurping the powers of the competent Civil Court. The Commission shall ensure that its inquiry does not run parallel, overlap with or does