A petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an administrative order when they have failed to contest the proceedings or file a reply before the original authority, thereby accepting the findings by non-traverse.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in S.H.R.C.No.11153/2018 dated 19.04.2021 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J. )

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1/ State Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C.No.11153/2018 and to quash the same.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:-

2.1. The Respondent No.2 herein, lodged a complaint before the respondent commission alleging abuse of power and brutal assault on her by the petitioner herein, who was then working as ‘Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station, Kanchipuram District’, and complaining violation of human rights. The said complaint was taken on record by the respondent commission as S.H.R.C.No.11153/2018 dated 19.04.2021 and the petitioner herein was put on notice. On receipt of notice, the petitioner herein got entered appearance on her behalf through counsel, but inspite of affording several opportunities, failed to file any reply/ counter. Hence, the respondent commission proceed further, requiring the parties to file proof affidavits. Accordingly, the Respondent No.2 filed her proof affidavit and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Even at that stage, inspite of granting several opportunities, the petitioner herein, who was the respondent in the complaint before the respondent commission, failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence. Hence, the respondent commission proceeded to consider the complaint on its own merits, based on the material available on record.

2.2. The respondent commission, after having examined the material on record, especially Ex.P5, the letter issued by the Medical Officer of the Prison Hospital, Special Prison for Women dated 21.12.2018, and the photograph marked as Ex.P6, showing the injuries suffered by the Respondent No.2 on her both knees, swelling in her left hand, right leg toe and fingers etc., observed that the injuries suffered by the Respondent No.2 herein have not been truly recorded by the Prison Doctors. The respondent commission, having taken note of the severe injuries suffered by the Respondent No.2 and taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made by the Respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein, especially in the absence of any counter filed by the petitioner herein, proceeded to accept the allegations made by the Respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein and concluded that the Respondent No.2 was assaulted by the petitioner herein with hands and lathi at the Police Station apart from snatching the valuables and cash of the

Respondent No.2 in a hasty manner. The relevant observations of the Respondent No.1/ Commission are as under:-

“12. Further, all the allegations of the complainant are supported by medical evidence and photographs, which substantiates the authenticity of the complaint. The duty of the Respondent as a police official is only to arrest a person, if he/she is accused of any offence and proceed according to law. There is no need for a person to be assaulted by the police. It should be kept in mind, here that women Police personnel were appointed in the disciplined force, only to make it friendly and easily approachable by the general public especially by women, but the happenings reported here are against the very purpose of creation of such a police force. In fact, it appears that the Women Police surpass and exceed their male counter parts in violations in some instances.

13.