ORDER

Heard Sri Satish K, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned HCGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) Call for records from the Respondents pertaining to the impugned recommendation dated 27/02/2020 (Annexure-J);

b) Issue WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned recommendation dated 27/02/2020 made by the 4th Respondent -Commission in H.R.C. No.3176/10/31/2019 c/w 3178/10/31/2019 (Annexure-J) and all further proceedings thereon, in the interest of justice and equity;

c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity; "

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that when he was working at Mahalakshmipuram Police Station as a Inspector of Police, a complaint was lodged on 13.8.2019 by one Smt Meghana alleging that one Narayanaswamy and his wife - Anitha assaulted her brother's wife. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.198/2019 was registered and the accused Narayanaswamy and Gopi were arrested. Smt Anitha, the wife of Narayanaswamy and Smt Manjula, the wife of Gopi, lodged a complaint with Respondent No.4 - Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), consequent to which, the Petitioner was notified to appear before the Commission on 17.8.2019. On 27.2.2020, the Commission furnished its opinion, report and recommendation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Sri Satish K, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends:

i) That under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the Commission does not have power to issue any direction;

ii) At para 14(a) of the report dated 27.2.2020 that the Commission has issued positive direction to the State to suspend or transfer the Petitioner which is required to be interfered with.

Hence, he seeks for allowing the Writ Petition and granting the reliefs sought for.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:

i) N.R.Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,1;

ii) Ms.H.S.Aruna Prabha v. Smt.Gowramma2;

iii) Rajesh Das, I.P.S. v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and ors., 3 iv) N.C.Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others 4

6. The learned HCGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that they will abide by the report of the Commission dated 27.2.2020.

1 WP No.55766/2016, DD 13.3.2018 2 WP No.42657/2014, DD 19.3.2019

3 2010(S) CTC 589 4 (2004) 2 SCC 579

7. Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission contends that the Writ Petition is premature and as is forthcoming from the report dated 27.2.2020 (Annexure-J to the Writ Petition), the Commission has merely issued a report and the wording of the same is clear. Hence, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

8. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on the following judgments:

i) The Chief Commissioner v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission & ors.;5 ii) S.H.Vasantha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,6;

iii) C.Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission7.

9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner countering the submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.4 - Commission that the Writ Petition is premature submits that the positive direction issued by the Commission at para 14(a) of the report is detrimental to the Petitioner. He further

5 WP No.2244/2022, DD 10.4.2023 6 WP No.1404/2021, DD 21.3.2023

7 2015 SCC Online Kar 5674

submits that the complainants have withdrawn the case and there was no material furnished by the complainants on the basis of which the directions issued by the Commission could have been given.

10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the question that arises for consideration is:

'Whether the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is liable to be granted?'

11. The only aspect that requires consideration in the