Uttarakhand Power Corporation vs National Human Rights Commission

Alok Singh, J.

1) Heard Mr. D. S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Vivek Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Sr.Advocate for the

respondent.

2) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and

quashing the order 13.04.2009 [communicated through letter dated 22.05.2009 of the Assistant Registrar (Law)] contained in Annexure-1 to the writ

petition.

3) Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint submitted by the General Secretary, Uttaranchal Bijli Karmachari Sangh, the National

Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) vide order dated 08.12.2008 recommended to Uttarakhand Power

Corporation Limited to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakh as monetary relief to the next kin of Suresh Chandra, who became a victim of electrocution on

28.05.2003 in Dehradun. Feeling aggrieved, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation sent a communication dated 04.12.2008 to the Commission stating

therein that deceased Suresh Chandra was himself responsible for the unfortunate incident because he had been working for consumers in an

unauthorized manner. Since he was not an employee of the Corporation, he cannot be given compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s

Compensation Act.

4) Thereafter, vide order 13.04.2009 [communicated through letter dated 22.05.2009 of the Assistant Registrar (Law)], the Commission has held as

under:-

“The Commission finds no merit in the contention urged on behalf of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited. It may be clarified that the

Commission did not award compensation under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act. While determining the quantum of monetary relief, the

Commission merely pointed out that the deceased was entitled to parity with the regular employees. While making recommendation for monetary

relief, the Commission had specifically referred to an enquiry report submitted by the Electrical Inspector in its proceedings dated 4th December,

2008. Uttarakhand Power Corporation is conspicuously silent on the said report of the Electrical Inspector. Therefore, the Commission finds no reason

to reconsider its decision. The recommendation made on 8th December, 2008 is hereby reiterated. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited shall

submit compliance report with proof of payment within six weeks.

It is therefore requested that the report as directed by the Commission in the matter be sent latest by 10. 07.2009 for further consideration by the

Commission.â€​

5) Feeling aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation before this Court.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per sub-section (a) of Section 18 of the Act, 1993, the Commission cannot direct the petitioner

or the Government to make payment of compensation to the victim or the members of his family, instead it can only recommend to make payment of

compensation. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the Commission reiterated its decision dated 08.10.2008 by which only a recommendation was

made to the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakh as monetary relief to the next kin of the victim. It was merely a

recommendation of the Commission.

7) Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that after giving recommendation for compensation, the Commission has directed the petitioner to

submit compliance report with proof of payment within six weeks.

8) The provisions of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1993’) is reproduced

hereinunder for convenience:-

“18. Steps during and after inquiry. The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this

Act, namely:-

(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment

thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority -

(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider

necessary.

(ii) …………………..

(iii) ………………….â€​

9) As per sub-section (a) of Section 18 of the Act, 1993, the Commission may recommend to the Government to make payment of compensation or

damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family. Thus, the Commission can recommend to make payment of compensation

to the next kin of the deceased.

10) In so far as the recommendation of the Commission regarding payment of compensation to the victim’s family is concerned, the impugned

order passed by the Commission is legal keeping in view of the provision of Section 18(a) of the Act, hence, the same is liable to be sustained. In so

far as the direction regarding the submission of compliance report and proof of payment is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the said

direction should not have been given by the Commission. The part of the impugned order by which the petitioner was directed to submit compliance

report with proof of payment is hereby quashed.

11) In view of above, the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

12) Before parting, it needs to be mentioned here that such a recommendation made by the Commission is not binding on the parties to the proceeding,

including the petitioner. The power is only to make appropriate recommendation to the Authority concerned / Government. The said recommendation

cannot be equated to an executable order at all. The Commission’s report shall not be construed as a direction to the authority/petitioner.

However, it is made clear that the report of the Commission needs to be considered by the petitioner objectively, in accordance with law, within a

period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.