PROF. T.S.CHACKO v. BEFORE THE 1 ST
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
P9summons, this writ petition is dismissed
Judgment
Operative part
W.P.(C)No.7605/122
a.To issue a writ of Certiorari or otherappropriate writ, order or direction quashingExt.P7 summons issued by the 1st respondent;b.To issue a writ of Prohibition or otherappropriate writ, order or direction to the 1strespondent not to proceed with the proposedenquiry in respect of Ext.P1 complaint filed by the2nd respondent.
According to the petitioners, the Commission does not havejurisdiction to entertain the compliant, in view of the decisionof this Court in Regional Cancer Centre v. Gopalan [2006(1)KLT 58] and Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human RightsAct. I am of opinion that only a summons has been issued tothe petitioners and the petitioners are perfectly free to take alltheir contentions before the Commission. It is not desirablefor this Court to interfere with the proceedings at this stageinsofar as the Commission has not yet had an opportunity toconsider the matter after hearing both sides. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take all theircontentions before the Commission pursuant to Ext.P9summons, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say, thepetitioners would be free to appear through counsel before the Commission unless the Commission directs otherwise. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGEacd W.P.(C)No.7605/123 W.P.(C)No.7605/124
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.