RAY BANQUET AND HOTELS PVT.LTD.versusGUJARAT STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

     C/SCA/3181/2026                                ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3181 of 2026

==========================================================
            RAY BANQUET AND HOTELS PVT.LTD. & ANR.
                            Versus
         GUJARAT STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. NANDISH CHUDGAR for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================


 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA


                             Date : 06/03/2026

                                 ORAL ORDER


1.    By way of this petition, the petitioners have approached
this Court by under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by
calling in question the legality and validity of the proceedings
being HRC/2026/ADC/06/LEGAL-3 pending before Gujarat
State Human Rights Commission.


2.    Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the
petitioners,       tenaciously    submitted      that   while      initiating
proceedings against the petitioners under the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission has not complied
with the directions and/or guidelines issued by this Court in
case of Mahendra Shanabhai Patel and Ors. vs. The
District Magistrate and Ors. in Special Civil Application



                                   Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/3181/2026                       ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026




No.8914 of 2025.


3.    Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the
petitioners submitted that this Court has in no uncertain
terms issued guidelines for the purpose of initiating and
conducting the proceedings under the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993, by the Commission. For the sake of brevity,
the same are reproduced hereinbelow:


     [21] Before concluding the present proceedings,
     and while exercising powers under Article 226 of
     the Constitution of India, this Court considers it
     appropriate to issue certain directions and
     guidelines regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of
     powers by the Human Rights Commission under the
     Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. These
     directions are issued to ensure that, in future, the
     powers under the Act are not abused and the
     process of law is not misused. The Court deems it
     necessary to lay down such guidelines to e)ectively
     achieve the object and purpose of the Protection of
     Human Rights Act, 1993, as set out hereunder:

     (i) Before taking suo motu cognizance and / or upon
     any complaint of complainant, the Human Rights
     Commission shall conduct a primary scrutiny to
     ascertain whether allegation prima facie discloses
     any violation of human rights, as de1ned under
     Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. For exercising suo motu
     powers, the Commission shall have to be more
     vigilant and such exercise of powers shall not be on
     a casual information, but shall be based on prima
     facie trustworthy material and disclosure thereof
     shall have to be recorded in the order by which suo
     motu cognizance is taken;

     (ii) While taking cognizance and / or entertaining
     complaint(s) alleging violation of human rights, the
     Commission shall take into consideration the


                            Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/3181/2026                       ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026




Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights
Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 and
consider whether the allegation (s) / complaint(s)
falls in any of the provisions of Regulation 9 of the
Regulations 1994;

(iii) The Human Rights Commission shall not
entertain any complaint which predominantly
involve private civil dispute including the disputes
relating to title, possession, succession, partition,
Release Deed, Contracts or other matters squarely
falling within the domain of the Civil Court unless
there is a demonstrable involvement of the State
action resulting in a recognizable human rights
violation;

(iv) The Human Rights Commission shall have to
seek declaration from the complainant with regard
to any ongoing proceeding before any Court of law
for the same subject matter. If it appears that there
is a proceeding on going, the Commission shall
refrain itself from proceeding further usurping the
powers of the competent Civil Court. The
Commission shall ensure that its inquiry does not
run parallel, overlap with or does not obstruct the
judicial proceedings or does not result in con:icting
with    the    determination   of   issues   pending
adjudication before the Court; (v) Any decision
taking cognizance of a complaint must be after
holding preliminary inquiry and supported by a brief
written order recording the satisfaction of the
Commission that;

(a) The complainant discloses a prima facie case of
violation of human rights; and

(b) Inquiry by the Commission              is    legally
maintainable under the Act;

(vi) The Human Rights Commission shall exercise
due diligence before issuing summons, notices,
warrants ensuring that;



                       Page 3 of 6
     C/SCA/3181/2026                         ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026




     (a) Such measures are taken only after proper
     application of mind, more particularly, issuance of
     warrants shall not be in a casual manner. The mode
     of issuance of warrants shall be the last resort with
     a recording of brief reasons thereof;

     (b) The tone and tenor of all the communications
     shall be neutral and judicial in character;

     (vii) Unnecessary impleadment of public o)icials in
     purely private matters is to be strictly avoided. The
     public o)icials, in any case, shall not have to be
     called upon personally before the Commission in a
     casual manner and if at all need be, considering the
     seriousness, the o)icials shall have to be allowed to
     be remained present by online proceeding;

     (viii) Public O)icials shall not be arraigned as party
     in any private dispute;

     (ix)  The    Human     Rights   Commission    shall
     periodically undertake training of its members and
     sta)s on:

     (a) Statutory limits of jurisdiction;

     (b) Distinction between civil rights and human
     rights;

     (c) Proper exercise of powers while undertaking
     inquiry;

     (x) The Human Rights Commission must be guided
     by the legislative intent and must ensure that the
     Commission’s function is as a protector of the
     genuine human rights and not as an alternative
     forum for Civil Dispute Resolution.



4.    Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the
petitioners submitted that in brazen de6ance of the aforesaid



                              Page 4 of 6
     C/SCA/3181/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026




guidelines, the Commission has invoked its jurisdiction and
that is not only illegal but contemptuous in nature.


5.    Having considered the aforesaid submissions and upon
perusal of the material available on record, it prima facie
appears that the directions/guidelines issued by this Court
have not been followed in their true letter and spirit.
However, without further delving into the aspect of alleged
non-compliance          and/or    contempt,            this      Court      deems         it
appropriate, in the 6tness of things, to relegate the petitioner
to approach the Commission by 6ling a written preliminary
objection       against     the       continuation          of     the      impugned
proceedings. If such an application is 6led within a period of
ten days from today, the Commission shall 6rst decide the
same before proceeding further with the matter.


5.1. Needless          to   clarify    that         while     deciding       the        said
objection, the Commission shall pass a reasoned order, either
justifying the continuation of the proceedings or otherwise. It
is further clari6ed that while adjudicating such objection, the
Commission shall bear in mind the decision of this Court in
Mahendra Shanabhai Patel and Ors. vs. The District
Magistrate and Ors., and shall follow the same without any
deviation.


6.    It is pertinent to note that this Court could have taken
cognizance of the issue at this stage; however, in the interest
of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to a9ord one more
opportunity to the Commission to set its house in order.


                                      Page 5 of 6
      C/SCA/3181/2026                                                   ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026




7.      With this direction, the present Petition is disposed of
accordingly.


        Direct Service today is permitted.



                                                                            (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
NIHAL PATEL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: NIHAL PATEL(HC02355), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/03/2026 17:44:14




                                              Page 6 of 6