Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Thr Municipal Commissioner v. Maharashtra State Human Rights Thr Its Chairperson And ANR

913-WP-8511-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8511 OF 2024 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner

...Petitioner

Versus

Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai Through Its Chairperson And Anr.

...Respondents

------ Mr. Pralhad Paranjape a/w Mr. Yash Tembe and Mr. Pradeep Patil i/by Mr. Sunil Sonawane for the Petitioner.

Mr. Y. D. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent - State. -------

CORAM

:

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE :

3rd JULY 2024 P.C.

:

1.

The petition questions the order dated 07.05.2024 in which the following directions have been issued: "a) Respondent do pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Shri Krishna Singh within six weeks from date of receipt of this recommendation and in the event of default do pay simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of this order till its full realization.

b) Necessary sanction/approval for construction of toilet be expedite on priority basis and inform Shri Krishna Singh and also to intimate Secretary, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission.

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2024.07.03 17:35:19 +0530 c) Secretary attached with the Commission to forward the copy of the order to the office of the Additional Chief SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Sajakali Jamadar

913-WP-8511-2024.doc Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Municipal Commissioner, MCGM for information and necessary action as mandate u/s. 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 r/w Reg. 22 to 24 of Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2011.

With these recommendations present complaint stands closed and disposed off."

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner take exceptions to these directions contending that they are beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1.

3.

A perusal of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 would indicate that the aforesaid directions are in consonance with what the Commission is empowered to do under the aforesaid provision. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Sajakali Jamadar