The State Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening in a contractual dispute, which should instead follow the agreed grievance resolution procedures.

[Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.

The writ petitioner herein is a wing of the Health department in Tamil Nadu functioning under the control of the Health and Family Welfare Department. The object of the writ petitioner is to sensitize the public about AIDS and its prevention and control; and further, to provide counselling to patients affected by AIDS. For the said purpose, the writ petitioner engaged the 2^nd respondent herein, an NGO, and had entered into an agreement with it. Funds were allotted to the 2^nd respondent NGO to carry out the object of the writ petitioner as per the guidelines under the terms and conditions of the contract.

2. The agreement entered into in the year 2007 was later extended on 01.04.2018. Subsequently, allegations arose regarding the misuse of funds by the NGO. In view of such allegations, the writ petitioner stopped providing funds to the NGO.

3. Aggrieved by the stoppage of funds, the 2^nd respondent approached the State Human Rights Commission alleging that the writ petitioner had not released funds from 2015 to 2018 and had deliberately withheld payments towards staff salaries, travelling allowances, office rent and electricity charges. As a result, the NGO suffered severe financial constraints.

4. Before the State Human Rights Commission, the writ petitioner has pleaded that the matter is purely contractual and obligatory in nature between the writ petitioner and the NGO. He further submitted that in view of serious violations and misuse of the funds allotted, the action of stoppage of funds was taken against the NGO by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner also contended that, if at all the NGO aggrieved in any manner by such action, it ought to have resorted before the dispute redressal mechanism as agreed by the parties under Clause15 of the agreement.

5. However, the State Human Rights Commission has overruled the said objection and has passed the following recommendations:

“ a) The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant Dr.Lucas Babu, Director, Rural Integrated Development Organization (RIDO), No.2/184, Valluvar Nagar, Oddapatti Post, Dharmapuri-636705, within 8 weeks for the violation of the Right to life, dignity and mental agony due to delayed payment from the TANSACS.

b) After making such payment, the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu may recover a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) from the TANSACS.

c) The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai shall direct the Project Director, TANSACS to arrive at the amount due to the petitioner, if any, by Arbitration and to settle the same within three months.”

Being aggrieved by the above said recommendation, the present writ petition has been filed under Section 18(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the terms of the agreement and submitted that as per the Clause 2.1, “Service” means those activities relating to targets and interventions within the scope of care, support and treatment to be performed by the Grantee (NGO) for the implementation of the services, based on which the grant-in-aid funds shall be released in installments. The learned counsel further referred to Clause 5.3 of the agreement, which deals with financial limits. The said Clause provides that if the Grantor (Writ Petitioner) becomes aware of any misuse of funds by the Grantee (NGO), its employees or its agents, the Grantor reserves the right to stop all future