(R4 is Suo Motu impleaded vide Court Order dated 28.07.2026)

PRAYER :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to Call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent Commission in SHRC Case No. 827 of 2016 dated 16.09.2019 and quash the same.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent/State Human Rights Commission in SHRC No. 827 of 2016 dated 16.09.2019, whereby a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation on the allegation that the petitioner had violated the human rights of the third respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working in the second respondent-Corporation. The third respondent had preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission alleging that the petitioner had behaved rudely with him while he was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing Registration No. TN 74 N 1657, plying on Route No. 2V. According to the third respondent, on 16.01.2016, while he was travelling in the said bus, he was forcibly pushed out of the bus by the driver and conductor. He further alleged that a travel ticket was not issued to him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, in response to the complaint, the second respondent had filed its counter before the State Human Rights Commission and marked documents as exhibits, including the route map and the bus travel records consisting of five sheets. However, the State Human Rights Commission, without properly appreciating the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the route map produced as Exhibit R2 had been prepared subsequently only for the purpose of defeating the claim made by the third respondent. On that basis, the Commission concluded that there was a violation of human rights and directed payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/-. The dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is essentially a consumer dispute arising out of the alleged non-issuance of a travel ticket and the alleged conduct of the driver and conductor during the course of the journey. According to him, the grievance raised by the private respondent is in the nature of a consumer grievance and therefore, the appropriate remedy, if any, would lie before the competent Consumer Forum. The State Human Rights Commission, therefore, ought not to have entertained the complaint and imposed compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction.

4. Though notice was served on the third respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Commission has proceeded substantially on the basis of the dispute relating to the bus journey, the issuance of the travel ticket and the records maintained by the second respondent-Corporation. The complaint made by the third respondent essentially relates to a consumer grievance arising out of the alleged deficiency in service and the conduct of the crew of the bus. The same could not have been treated, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as a complaint involving violation of human rights warranting the imposition of compensation by the State Human Rights Commission.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the State Human Rights Commission is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.