CASE FILED (WRIT PETITION (C) 15045 OF 2014) ON 11.8.2014 AGAINST NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ODISHA One Writ is filed by me in Honourable High Court of Odisha challenging the arbitrary disposal and transmission of the complaint of human rights to the perpetrators without taking any action as per Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 and rules. 1. The petition is being filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in respect of the arbitrary disposal of complaints regarding human rights violation and by transferring the complaint to the accused authorities and challenging opposite party’s such illegality which violated the basic statute, on which the opposite party survives. 2. I have approached the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi with a complaint via email on 10th June 2014 as per the protection of Human Rights Act 1993 regarding atrocities and illegal acts committed by Delhi and Odisha Police with Sri Alok Jena (petitioner in Chit Fund Scam Public Interest Litigation in Honourable Supreme Court of India) and his wife Srimati Kalpana Jena. 3. The National Human Rights Commission received the complaint of human rights violation via email on 10th June 2014 and registered the case on 18th June 2014 (Case No. 3598/30/3/2014). 4. I learnt from National Human Rights Commission website case status record i.e. nhrc.nic.in/display.asp that the complaint filed by me is disposed with direction on 15th July 2014, which states:- ***** “The complaint be transmitted to the concerned authority for such action deemed appropriate. The authority concerned is directed to take appropriate action within 8 weeks and to inform the complainant of the action taken report in the matter.” ******* 5. On 27th July 2014 I drew the attention of the National Human Rights Commission through another complaint via email against such transmission, which was duly received by NHRC, New Delhi. 6. That, after receipt of the said complaint, National Human Rights Commission did not consider the same and maintained the silence. As per the provision of the Act and Rule of the protection of Human rights Act 1993 the National Human Rights Commission is required to register the complaint and place before the Commission for preliminary consideration as expeditiously as possible as but no later than seven days. But unfortunately, National Human Rights Commission did not consider my complaint. 7. The National Human Rights Commission was established with the purpose to protect and promote human rights, including justice and relief to victims of human violations as under sections of 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. Thus, the said Act provides power to National Human rights Commission to conduct inquiry, provide relief, making policy recommendation and to guidelines for the public authority. 8. The National Human Rights Commission enjoys, while inquiring into complaints under this Act, all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). The said transfer of complaint without hearing the complainant is not only the arbitrary, but also the denial of natural justice of the present petitioner. The arbitrary disposal without hearing the petitioner (me) is violation of the basic principles of the natural justice by apex human rights body of this country, and it denied the justice. 9. The disposal held at first placement before the commission on 15th July 2014, and this was 21 days delay which itself violates the National Human Rights Commission rules. 10. The arbitrary disposal of my complaint and inaction on the representation regarding such closing of the case by National Human Rights Commission, myself and the victims suffer irreparable loss and injury. 11. The National Human Rights Commission merely transferred the complaint to the perpetrators to act against them and dispose the complaint without knowing and/or monitoring what is the action taken by the authorities to whom the complaint was transferred. The said transfer to perpetrator authorities led the miscarriage of justice. The said arbitrary transfer is contrary to the said Act and denial of justice to victims of human rights violations who mostly are from the weaker section of the society and are the victims of public authorities. 12. The arbitrary transfer of the complaint by National Human Rights Commission has caused serious prejudice and injustice to the petitioner (me). 13. The arbitrary transfer of complaint by National Human Rights Commission is completely contrary to law and being perverse. I have prayed the Honourable High Court of Odisha :- A) Under the facts and the circumstances stated above, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be please to admit this writ application and issue a “Rule- Nisi” calling upon National Human Rights Commission to so cause and thereafter as to why the application filed by the petitioner (me), shall not be allowed and if National Human Rights Commission fails to file so cause or shows insufficient cause make the said rule absolute and direct the National Human Rights Commission to restore and consider the above mentioned case as per the protection of human rights act 1993 and direct National Human Rights Commission to provide adequate compensation in favour of the petitioner( me). B) Pass such others orders /orders and /or writ / writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. WITH REGARDS JAYANTA KUMAR DAS (RTI ACTIVIST),9861770749 (M)
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:43:49 +0000