Tr.Hussain Ahamed v. The Chairman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Tr.Hussain Ahamed ..
Petitioner v.
1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai 600 028
2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai 600 028
3. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
4. The Director General of Police and Head of Police Force Office of Director General of Police No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
5. Mr.Sakthi Ganesan
6. Mr.S.Raja
7. Mr.Elumalai ..
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action to dispose SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022 by directing 4 to 7 respondents to produce the reports called for and to consider the representation dated 05.03.2024.
For Petitioner ::
Ms.Mishel Mary Edward For Respondents ::
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader for R3 Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor for R4 to R7
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to take appropriate action to dispose of the complaint in SHRC Case No. 14033 of 2022 by directing the respondents 4 to 7 to produce the reports called for and to consider the representation dated 05.03.2024.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the complaint
filed by the petitioner in SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022 is pending.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is for the State Human Rights Commission to regulate its works on its board. The High Court cannot issue a direction to dispose of the case on priority basis in exercise of the powers of judicial review. In the event of issuing any such direction, it will cause prejudice to the interests of the other complainants, who are all waiting for disposal of their respective cases before the State Human Rights Commission.
4. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267, has held as follows:- "47.3. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the timebound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of
cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending."
5. The High Court only in exceptional circumstances have to issue directions to dispose of the cases by the Courts/Tribunals etc. The nature of litigation, volume of documents to be scrutinized, evidences etc., are to be considered before issuing any such direction in such exceptional cases. Routine issuance of direction to the Court/Tribunal to dispose of the cases by fixing time limit would cause inconvenience to the Court concerned and it may not be in a position to abide by the directions, if any, issued. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is for the petitioner to approach the State Human Rights Commission and request for speedy disposal of his case. No costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 21.02.2025 ss
To
1. The Registrar Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028
2. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
3. The Director General of Police and Head of Police Force Office of Director General of Police No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss 21.02.2025