The Odisha High Court passed an Order on the date 29th June 2022. In the Case of State of Odisha & Ors.v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr. ( W.P.(C) No. 38923 of 2020). The Orissa High Court has held that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers Human Rights Commission only to recommend’ and not to direct compensation. Notably, the Section provides for steps to be taken by the Commission “during and after inquiry”. A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinhagave the order.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A.K. Sharma, an additional government advocate, appeared in the name of the applicant. He claimed that the committee had exceeded the authority by ordering Odisha to pay RS compensation. Each of four people died and died of diarrhea. It was based on Article 13 to 18 of the Human Rights Protection Law, and asserted that the secretary should have had a hearing opportunity. The simple program of show program notification and rejection of response has led to communication. He also argued that the committee had only the ability, according to Article 18, but had an address to pay in this case. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction in this direction. He paid the attention of the court on October 30, 2019 that the court had to respond to the cause of the program, indicating that the states investigation fell into the wells. There was also a current. They collected the drinking water of the wells and the current. The water tests and the well collected current revealed the existence of a modified toxic strain of vibrator anger! He also took all the measures to provide villagers with medical support, and the government has held a group conference and told the villagers that they would not drink from Wells and Ogawa. In addition, the continuation of the water supply of the tank and the pipe was educated. In the situation, the administration could give intense discussions.
JUDGEMENT
The court shows that the document revealed in a request for writing and reading a dispute did not think that the committee itself had begun the investigation. Since there was no survey by the committee, there was no doubt about the committee, so it was necessary to investigate the acts of the committee, or that the reputation of the person probably had a deterioration, so to the committee. I had no doubt. The committee, which was simply issued by the show in the procedure, began with a complaint submitted by the other side. 1. The court has specified that Article 18 will establish measures during and after the survey. The committee was omitted to conduct a survey in this document, and no Article 18 was called for any of the measures taken there. Therefore, this provision allows only what the committee does not directly compensate, but to recommend it. For the above -mentioned reasons, it was discovered that the contested communication was issued in addition to the authorities, and thus was excluded and canceled. However, the court recognized the fact that four people had died on the suspicion of the case. As a result, he ordered the state to investigate the remuneration policy and confirmed that he had to pay his previous Gratia to his family.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY KUNMUN DAS.
