IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

13th OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 1040 of 2006 BETWEEN:-

M.P.HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONTHR- REGISTRAR PARYAWAS BHAWAN,JAIL ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPT.OF HOME,GOVT.OF M.P.MINISTRY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. K.K.RAJAK STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION BAJARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the M.P. Human Rights Commission through its Registrar, seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) Mandamus, commanding the respondents to implement the recommendations made by the petitioner State Human Rights Commission on

4.3.2002 in law and spirit.

(ii) Mandamus directing the respondent State to make payment of compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

Any other order or orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that one complaint was made by one Sanjay Kumar Rai @ Sanju on 10.4.2001 alleging that he was taken away by the police in the night of 3.4.2001 to the Police Station where Town Inspector K. K. Rajak and others abused and beaten him and later on, on the next day he was produced before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhopal, from where, he was released on bail. It was alleged that he was falsely implicated in the case, as a result, his human rights were violated.

3. The Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the complaint and sent for report from the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal. The Superintendent of Police, Bhopal stated that the police had taken action against the complainant under the Gambling Act and he was caught from the spot, therefore, he was proceeded against under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. The allegations made in the complaint were denied by the police. Accordingly, State Human Rights Commission issued notice under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act to the five police persons including Town Inspector. A joint reply was submitted. Personal hearing was also given and ultimately, it was found that SHO K.K.Rajak is responsible for violation of human rights and recommended a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant Sanjay Kumar payable by the State and if it so desires State could realize the same from the persons found guilty of violating human rights. The re- commendation was sent to the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bhopal for implementation. Reminders were also given. The State Government, on the basis of the report submitted to it by the Inspector General of Police, Range Bhopal, as well as on the Government Instructions, replied that it do not think it appropriate to take any action against SHO K.K. Rajak nor to make payment of compensation. Accordingly, recommendation of Human Rights Commission was not implemented.

4. Challenging the aforesaid decision of the State Government, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission is mandatory in nature and therefore, the State cannot refuse to implement it.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the State that recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission is merely recommendatory in nature and therefore, they were rightly not acted upon.

6. Heard counsel for the parties.

7. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission is mandatory in nature or recommendatory in nature?

8. This question is no more res-integra.

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Human Rights Commission v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2011 (3) MPLJ

168 has held as under :-

“18.