Petitioner challenging recovery order by National Human Rights Commission and S.P. citing earlier Supreme Court judgment holding such orders illegal, unauthorized and of no jurisdiction. Court allowed petition and set aside impugned orders.
Impugned orders dated 05.10.1999 and 26.02.2001 set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13666 of 2001
Petitioner :- Surya Kant Dwivedi and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratap Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
“Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
Writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.1999, 26.7.2000 and 3.11.2000. It is said that National Human Rights Commission cannot pass any order imposing any punishment or asking the petitioners to pay any compensation. At the best, after making enquiry, it can make recommendation to various authorities. So far as State Government is concerned, the power of imposing punishment of recovery etc. is not disputed. But it is said that before passing the orders by Secretary, Home and Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, no enquiry was conducted against petitioners
2
in accordance with statutory rules and there is no determination of compensation by any competent forum. Therefore, all the orders are clearly illegal.
Despite repeated query, learned counsel appearing for respondents could not show any provision under which an order of punishment could have been passed by the Commission or the State Government could have passed such order without making any enquiry. In absence of any provision shown, in my view, the impugned orders are illegal, unauthorized, withouth jurisdiction and cannot sustain.
The Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 23.12.1999, 26.7.2000 and 3.11.2000 (Annexures 6, 10 and 11 to this writ petition) are hereby quashed.”
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the writ petition against the orders of the National Human Rights Commission directing recovery of money.
Which judgment expressly held that the Commission has no power to impose punishment or ask for compensation.
With what direction should the impugned orders dated 05.10.1999 and 26.02.2001 be disposed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi and others Vs. Union of India and othersFollowed¶7
Writ Petition (Writ-A) No. 48801 of 2000 (Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi and others Vs. Union of India and others) dated 15.07.2013
Rajesh Das Vs. Tamilnadu State Human Rights CommissionRelied on¶14
Rajesh Das Vs. Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission (Writ Petition No. 21604 of 2000) decided on 27.08.2010 reported in AIR 2011 (NOC) 49 (Mad.)
Surya Kant Dwivedi
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
