Allowed

A.Sambandam, v. The State Human Rights

Madras HC10 Aug 2023WP/18337/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the State Human Rights Commission's order dismissing an application to receive additional documents and file a supplementary affidavit. The court held that the Commission should be liberal in allowing additional evidence when the case is adjudicated on merits.

What did the court decide?

...quash the impugned order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the 1st respondent and restore the application in case No.5669 of 2008 for fresh consideration...

A.Sambandam, Vs The State Human Rights — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.18337 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 10.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.No18337 of 2018 and WMP.No.21660 of 2018

¶7

A.Sambandam ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State Human Rights Commission Thiruvarangam 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road Chennai-28 2.J.Sivakumar 3.L.Sankar 4.L.Krishnan 5.Murugan 6.Munusamy 7.Vaikumdamoorthy 8.V.Dhanaraj 9.V.Varadharaju ..Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records

¶11

Page 1/6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

W.P.No.18337 of 2018

¶14

relating to the order dated 21.06.2018 made in Petition in SHRC case No.5669

¶15

of 2008 on the file of the 1^st respondent, quash the same and consequently

¶16

direct the 1^st respondent herein to receive the additional documents filed on 19.04.2018 in SHRC.No.5669 of 2008.

¶17

For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Adhishree

¶18

For respondents :: Mr.C.Jayaprakash for R1

¶19

Mr.Sairaman for R2 to R7 R8 and R9 – No appearance.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made J.Nisha Banu, J.)

¶22

This writ petition is filed praying to quash the order dated 21.06.2018 made in Petition in SHRC case No.5669 of 2008 on the file of the 1^st respondent and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent herein to receive the additional documents filed on 19.04.2018 in SHRC.No.5669 of 2008.

¶23

The order passed in SHRC.Case No.5669 of 2008 dated 21.6.2018 would read that the documents sought to be marked by the petitioner will not in any way helpful to the petitioner in deciding the main issue; no reason is stated for the delay in filing the application to receive 32 documents as Page 2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.18337 of 2018

¶26

additional documents subsequent to the filing of his proof affidavit on 24.08.2009.

¶27

The issue raised by the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission is that he was dispossessed forcibly by his erstwhile landlord S.Kanagaraj along with respondents 2 to 9 who are serving in the police department. The petitioner in respect of eviction on the hands of landlord filed RCOP and the steps taken by the landlord for his eviction required him to take action against respondents 2 to 9 and therefore, filed complaint before the State Human Rights Commission in Case No.5669 of 2008.

¶28

The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the typed set of papers would go to show that even earlier, this court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the first respondent holding that the allegations made in the complaint are very serious in nature and they need to be looked into by the Commission, which is constituted under the Act for that purpose.

¶29

The present writ petition is filed as against the order passed by the

¶30

State Human Rights Commission, 1^st respondent, on 21.06.2018, wherein, the

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page 3/6

¶33

W.P.No.18337 of 2018

¶34

petitioner’s application filed to receive 32 additional documents and permit him to file additional proof affidavit based on the materials collected subsequent to the filing of his proof affidavit on 24.08.2009, was dismissed by the SHRC, holding that no reasons are stated for the delay in filing the said application and there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioner.

¶35

The records would go to show that the petitioner herein presented himself before the Commission for all hearings. Further more, the case is to be adjudicated on merits and the same requires both sides to put forth their case including evidence both documentary and oral. In such circumstances, the Commission should be very liberal in allowing application for filing additional documents. That will not cause any prejudice to the other side. Therefore, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the 1^st respondent and restore the application in case No.5669 of 2008 for fresh consideration to the file of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Commission on the date fixed for hearing and on the subsequent dates. The 1^st respondent-Human Rights Commission, is directed fix the date for hearing and communicate the same to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Page 4/6

¶38

W.P.No.18337 of 2018

¶39

This writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.

¶40

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

(J.N.B, J.) (N.M., J.) 10.08.2023

¶42

nvsri

¶43

¶44

1.The State Human Rights Commission Thiruvarangam 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road Chennai-28

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Page 5/6

¶47

W.P.No.18337 of 2018

¶48

J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA,J.

nvsri

W.P.No18337 of 2018

10.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Page 6/6

A.Sambandam, v. The State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sambandam, v. The State Human Rights

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

V.Subburayan Vs The District Collector

K.Lakshminarayanan Vs the Director of Town

S.Kumari Vs The Secretary to Government

M/s. Psd Aqua Vs The Chairman

R.Vijayamohan Vs The Secretary to Government

Paramasivam Vs the Registrar