Allowed

Pitchaiya v. the State Human Rights Commission

Madras HC10 Aug 2021WP(MD)/13809/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the State Human Rights Commission to receive petitions by the petitioner to re-open evidence and recall witnesses for cross-examination. The Commission must decide the matter on merits after issuing notice to the complainant within six weeks of filing.

What did the court decide?

Director the State Human Rights Commission to receive petitions to re-open evidence and re-call witnesses and decide on merits within six weeks.

Pitchaiya Vs the State Human Rights Commission — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13809 of 2021

¶2

Pitchaiya

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.08.2021 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P(MD)No.13809 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.10773 of 2021

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The State Human Rights Commission, Represented by the Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

2.Selvaraj

¶10

3.Udayakumar ... Respondents

¶11

(R–1 is suo motu amended vide order of this Court dated 10.08.2021)

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to receive the petitioner's petitions for re-open and re-call filed under Order 18 Rule 17 & 151 CPC dated 15.07.2021. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶13

For R – 1 : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel Sekar For R – 3 : Mr.M.Chandra Bose

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.)

¶16

This Court suo motu amends the State Human Rights Commission, represented by the Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

2.The petitioner, who is facing proceedings before the State Human Rights Commission at the instance of the second respondent is before this Court.

¶18

3.The second respondent initiated complaint against the petitioner and the third respondent alleging the Human Rights violation and the said case has been taken on file by the first respondent in S.H.R Case No.4682/2015/C2. In the said complaint, counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner as well as the third respondent and they are contesting the matter.

¶19

4.Since the petitioner and the third respondent are police officials, they are unable to cross-examine P.W.2 and P.W.3 due to pandemic work. Therefore, the petitioner filed petitions to re-open the evidences of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and re-call the witnesses of P.W.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P(MD)No.13809 of 2021

¶22

and P.W.3 for the purpose of cross-examination. The allegation of the petitioner is that the said petitions are declined to be received by the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

5.Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, learned counsel who takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.M.Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶24

6.Notice to the second respondent is dispensed with as this Court only directs the first respondent/the State Human Rights Commission to receive the petitions and to decide the matter on merits, after issuing notice to the second respondent.

¶25

7.The allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not cross-examine P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were examined as witnesses on behalf of the second respondent/complainant, due to Covid duty. To re-open the evidences of the complainant and to recall P.W.2 and P.W.3, the petitions were presented before the State Human Rights Commission. However, it is stated that they were not received. The first respondent cannot decline to receive the said petitions.

¶26

8.As per law, the first respondent is supposed to receive the petitions and issue notice to the complainant and decide the matter, after hearing the parties on merits.

¶27

9.When such a procedure is known in law, the first respondent cannot decline to receive the petitions.

¶28

10.In view of that, the petitioner is directed to represent the petitions within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to receive the petitions filed by the petitioner to re-open the evidences of the complainant and re-call P.W.2 and P.W.3 for the purpose of cross-examination and decide the matter on merits, after issuing notice to the second respondent/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the petitions.

¶29

11.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CS I)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.P(MD)No.13809 of 2021

¶37

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶38

¶39

The Registrar,

¶40

The State Human Rights Commission, Tirunelveli,

¶41

Tirunelveli District.

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.M.SUBASH BABU, Advocate ( SR-25832[F] dated 10/08/2021 )

¶43

W.P(MD)No.13809 of 2021 10.08.2021

¶44

RS (06.09.2021) 3P 3C

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

3/3

Pitchaiya v. the State Human Rights Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitchaiya v. the State Human Rights Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Saravanan Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu

Shiva Vr Vs the Health Secretary

The Divisional Engineer/Central Vs the District Collector

Subbiah.v Vs the District Collector

Murugan M Vs the District Collector