Order on Board

28/07/2021

1.Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner herein calls in question legality and validity of the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been directed to make a payment of ₹10,000/- on account of professional negligence alleged to be committed by him.

3. Mr.J.A.Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as the Human Rights Commission has no right and authority to make an order directing payment of compensation and it could have only made recommendation to the competent authority. He would rely upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur v. Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission and Ors.1.

4.On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4/State, would support the impugned order.

5.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. The Supreme Court has delineated the scope of power and jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission in the matter of N.C. Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others2 and held as under:-

“14. We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is an “unique expert body” is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no

1 AIR 2018 Chhattisgarh 53

2 (2004) 2 SCC 579

unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even if it is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are not without other remedies. The assumption underlying the observation in the concluding passage extracted above proceeds on an incorrect premise that the person wronged by violation of human rights would be left without remedy if the Commission does not take up the matter.”

7. In the matter of Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v.

State of Maharashtra and another3, while dealing with Section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Supreme Court has held that recommendation must be seen in contradistinction to direction or mandate, and observed as under: -

“... Power to recommend disciplinary action is a power exercise of which may impose penal consequences. When such a recommendation is received, the disciplinary authority would conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of the requirements of law. It is a “recommendation” and not a “mandate” to conduct an enquiry.

3 (2012) 13 SCC 14 “Recommendation” must be seen in contradistinction to “direction” or “mandate”.

8. In the matter of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others4, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with function of the Enquiry Commission constituted under the provisions of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952, have held that function of the Commission is only recommendatory in nature, and observed as under: -

“... In the first place neither Parliament nor the Government has itself undertaken any inquiry at all. Parliament has made a law with respect