MAHARASHTR STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND ANRversusMAHARASHTRA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ANR

                                                                        WP 12683 of 2023.doc

                                                                           Rohit Ghuge

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       Digitally
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 12683 OF 2023
       signed by
       ROHIT
ROHIT  RAMDAS
RAMDAS GHUGE
GHUGE Date:
       2026.10.07
       11:07:03
                    1.    Maharashtra State Electricity
       +0530

                          Distribution Company Ltd.
                          Having its office at
                          Prakashgad, Bandra (E),
                          Mumbai.

                    2.    Chief Executive Engineer,
                          MSEDCL Bhosari Subdivision,
                          Pune – 411026.                                   …Petitioners

                                Versus

                    1.    Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission
                          9, Hajarimal Somani Marg,
                          Opp Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus,
                          Mumbai-400001.

                    2.    Commissioner of Police,
                          Pimpri Chinchwad Police Commissionerate
                          Pune.                                            …Respondents
                    _______________________________________________________________
                    Mr. Hiten Raut i/b Hassan Khan, for Petitioners.
                    Ms. Anamika Malhotra, for Respondent No.1.
                    Mr. Ketan Joshi, ‘B Panel counsel’ a/w Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP for State-
                    Respondent.
                    _______________________________________________________________

                                                     CORAM:        BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                                   ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ.

                                                      DATE :       30th SEPTEMBER 2026.




                                                            1/12
                                                      WP 12683 of 2023.doc

JUDGMENT [Per Ashish S. Chavan J.]:


1.           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of

the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. Learned

Counsel for the respondents waive service of notice on behalf of the

respective parties.



2.    The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

(“MSEDC”), is aggrieved by the communication dated 31.03.2023

emanating from the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Maharashtra

State Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) in MAS/Case No. –

2568/13/23/2020. By way of the order dated 01.03.2023, the

Commission had made recommendations in a complaint filed at the

instance of a public spirited body, viz. Human Rights Association for

Protection. Aggrieved by the said recommendations, the Petitioner has

approached this Court by invoking the Writ Jurisdiction seeking

quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 31.03.2023 and

consequently the order dated 01.03.2023.



3.    The facts germane to consider the issue at hand are as follows. On

05.09.2020 at about 1.30 pm, there was an explosion in the Transformer

situated at Indraini Nagar, Rajwada, Bhosari, Pune resulting into spillage

of oil from the Transformer. The oil spillage inflicted serious burn



                                         2/12
                                                       WP 12683 of 2023.doc

injuries on a 5 month old child, her mother and another lady, who

unfortunately succumbed on account of the burn injuries caused due to

the oil spillage. One Human Rights Association for Protection

(“Complainant”) approached the Respondent No. 1- Commission vide its

complaint letter dated 16.09.2020 inter alia raising grievances against the

erring officials, employees of the Petitioner alleging that it was on

account of their negligence that the victims lost their lives and hence,

appropriate legal action maybe taken against these officials.

      Acting upon the Complaint of the Association, Respondent No. 1-

Commission issued summons in exercise of power u/s 13 of the

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (“the Act of 1993”) to the

Petitioner No. 2. On considering the report placed on record by

Petitioner No. 2 - Chief Executive Engineer, Bhosari, Pune, the

Commission passed an order dated 04.03.2021 in exercise Section 16 of

the Act of 1993 giving an opportunity to the erring officials to file their

defence before the Commission.



4.    In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the officials of the

Petitioners filed their respective replies before the Commission, setting

out all the relevant facts which led to the unfortunate transformer blast.

It was the Petitioner’s contention that the blast occurred due to a fault in

the LT Cable line due to heavy rain in the preceding months and that the




                                          3/12
                                                       WP 12683 of 2023.doc

same had caused technical malfunction in the pressure winding of the

transformer which caused the explosion due to heat and high pressure.

Relying on the Electrical Inspector’s Report, the Petitioner had denied

any negligence by contending that the incident occurred on account of

excavation work done along the low voltage underground lines and it

being monsoon season, technical defaults occurred in these low voltage

lines resulting into high pressure winding of the transformer, leading to

its explosion due to severe heat and pressure.



5.    The Learned Commission vide its order dated 01.03.2023, placing

reliance on the fact that the maintenance and supervision of electrical

appliances installed by the Petitioner is its responsibility and obligation,

which in the facts of the case has not been discharged by the officials of

the Petitioner, moreover, criminal prosecution for negligence being

initiated against the higher officials of the Petitioner which is

demonstrated from the FIR No. 394 of 2020 registered by MIDC

Bhosari   Police   Station,   Pimpri-Chinchwad      and   the   subsequent

chargesheet laid against them, observed that the replies to the summons

issued by the Learned Commission were an eyewash and proceeded to

conclude that the negligence of the concerned officials warranted

invocation of the powers of the Commission u/s 18 of the Act of 1993

and has recommended payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.




                                          4/12
                                                      WP 12683 of 2023.doc

10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakhs] each to the legal heirs of the victims by

the office of the Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 jointly.



6.    Heard Mr. Raut for the Petitioner and Ms. Malhotra for

Respondent No.- 1, Mr. Joshi for Respondent No.-2.



7.    On behalf of the Petitioners, the impugned order was assailed on

several grounds. It was contended that Respondent No. 1 had erred in

coming to the conclusion that the incident had occurred due to failure on

part of the concerned officers to maintain and supervise the functioning

of the transformer. It was canvassed that the impugned order disregards

the fact that on the night of 05.09.2020, the Petitioner had replaced the

transformer and thereafter fixed the fuse of the transformer and also

conducted cable testing for fixing the fault in the cable. The Learned

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.-1

Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction insofar as the Commission is

only a recommendatory authority and cannot direct the authorities viz.

Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 to pay compensation. It was also

urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the order dated 01.03.2023 does

not reflect that the Learned Commission has conducted any fact finding

exercise to apportion the blame or determine the degree of negligence

qua the Petitioner.




                                         5/12
                                                      WP 12683 of 2023.doc



8.    The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has defended the

order dated 01.03.2023 contending that the Commission has not

exceeded its jurisdiction and was well within the powers vested in it

under the Act of 1993 to recommend imposition of compensation. She

also submitted that the recommendations of the Commission u/s 18

cannot be ignored by the State at its discretion reducing the

recommendation of the Commission to a mere opinion. She also urged

that the Commission has followed rules of natural justice as envisaged u/s

13 of the Act of 1993 and has dealt with the reply and rejected the

contentions of the Petitioner in its order dated 01.03.2023.



9.    Considering the conspectus of the issue set out by the Petition, we

must note that a co-ordinate bench of this Court (to which one of us,

Bharati Dangre J. was a party) had an occasion to consider a similar set of

issues which dealt with the recommendatory powers of the State Human

Rights Commission. Through a speaking order dated 23rd February

20261, this Court has traced the scheme of the Act of 1993, with

emphasis on its legislative intent, setting out the procedure in making

inquiry into a complaint as set out in Chapter IV of the Act of 1993 more

particularly Sections 17 and 18. This Court has noticed the

recommendatory power vested in the Commission by virtue of Section
1 2026:BHC-OS:5370-DB




                                         6/12
                                                         WP 12683 of 2023.doc

18 of the Act of 1993 (as amended in 2006) and considered the

parameters of the recommendatory powers of the Human Rights

Commission as seen from the lens of the judgments of various High

Courts. After taking a review of the diverse opinions expressed by various

High Courts, this Court observed thus:



         “19. From the aforesaid observations from the decision
         of the High Court of Delhi and Allahabad, we have no
         hesitancy in holding that the recommendation of the
         Human Rights Commission is liable to be treated as
         binding and definitely cannot be ignored with impunity
         as in our view, if it is held to be merely recommendary,
         leaving it to the discretion of the Government/Authority
         whether to implement the same or not it would defeat
         the avowed purpose for which the Commission if
         constituted. However, such an order passed by the
         Commission, in absence of a provision of appeal
         provided under the Act is permitted to be reviewed in
         exercise of the power of judicial review available to a
         constitutional court. If the State Government or
         Authority is aggrieved by a decision of the Commission,
         and when it approaches the constitutional court by
         raising a challenge to the same, the Court is duty bound
         to exercise its power of review, and examine the
         correctness of the said decision and this is what we
         propose to do on taking into consideration the grounds
         on which the Corporation has raised a challenge to the
         impugned order of the Commission...

         XXX

         28. The Human Rights Commission, under Chapter IV is
         empowered to inquire into the complaints of violation of
         human rights and in determining the liability, it may call
         for information or report from the Government or any
         other Authority or Organization subordinate thereto,




                                           7/12
                                                WP 12683 of 2023.doc

within the time prescribed and if on receipt of such
information or report the Commission is satisfied that no
further inquiry is required, or that the required action
must be initiated by the Government or the Authority, it
may not proceed with the complaint, but if it considers to
be necessary having regard to the nature of the
complaint, it may initiate an inquiry.
     As per Section 18, the Commission is entitled to take
various steps during or upon completion of the inquiry
and where the inquiry discloses violation of human rights
or negligence in prevention of violation of human rights
or abatement thereof, by a public servant, it may
recommend to the concerned Government or Authority
to make payment of compensation or damages to the
complainant or to the victim or to the members of his
family as the Commission may consider necessary.
     The conjoint reading of Section 17 and 18, as a part
of Chapter IV, highlighting the procedure to be adopted
by the Commission, when it conduct inquiry into the
complaint, it is noted that the Commission may call for
the information and if it considers necessary, initiate an
inquiry.
     The power conferred on the Commission upon
initiating any inquiry into the complaint of violation of
human rights, if result into disclosure of commission of
violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention
of violation of human rights, it is authorized to
recommend the concerned Government or Authority to
make payment of compensation or damages as the
Commission may deem necessary.

XXX

32. Though the remedy of monetary compensation for
violation of human rights was expounded through
various authoritative pronouncements, the Courts had at
the same time imposed limitations on its power to grant
such relief. In several cases the courts have refused to
exercise its writ jurisdiction in granting compensation
when it involved disputed questions of fact and there is a
clear denial of tortious liability by the State. In SPS




                                  8/12
                                                          WP 12683 of 2023.doc

         Rathod vs.State of Haryana & Ors2, the Apex Court
         recorded that it can grant compensation only when there
         is prima facie or established violation of guaranteed
         fundamental right, but when the Foundational fact itself
         is in dispute, the Court will desist from ordering
         compensation and the exercise of power for determining
         the compensation in glaring and clear cases of custodial
         rape or death or illegal detention of the poor and
         helpless, is not feasible in each and every case.
             In M.C. Mehta & Anr. v.s Union of India & Ors 3, the
         Supreme Court evolved another self imposed restriction
         being, that the power to award compensation for
         violation of fundamental rights, but limited this remedy
         to appropriate cases where infringement was gross and
         patent i.e. it is incontrovertible and ex-facie glaring and
         that the the violation must be of such magnitude as it
         would shock the conscience of the Court.”



10.   Thus, summarizing the position of law,              this Court in the

aforementioned order has observed that award of compensation/damages

does not come as grace or bounty and only when the necessary link is

established between the fault of the authority and its culpability by way

of negligence can the Court award such compensation.



11.   Examining the impugned communication dated 31.03.2023 and

the order of the Commission dated 01.03.2023 emanating therefrom in

the light of the aforesaid principles, certain facts emerge with clarity. The

Commission vide its initial order dated 04.03.2021, observing that a case

was made out for its intervention called for an explanation from four


2 (2005) 10 SCC 1
3 (1987) 1 SCC 395




                                            9/12
                                                         WP 12683 of 2023.doc

senior officials of the Petitioner in terms of its powers u/s 16 of the Act of

1993. The concerned officials in compliance with the aforesaid directions

of the Commission submitted their detailed explanations wherein they

took a stand that there was no negligence on their part and that they had

done everything in their power to fix the transformer and restore the

electricity and that the blast had occurred due to reasons beyond their

control. The impugned order comes to a conclusion that the explanations

were an attempt to wash out any culpability against the officials and was

only an eye wash. The only reason that the Learned Commission ascribes

in the impugned order to arrive at such a conclusion is that the officers

being experts in their field ought to have anticipated occurrence of such a

mishap and had they taken timely action, the same would have been

averted. The Commission has laid emphasis on the fact that criminal

action has been initiated against the officers by the Police where they

have been prosecuted for the offence of rash and negligent action. A

perusal of the impugned order would reveal firstly that there is no

discussion or reasoning by the Learned Commission as to why it did not

find favour with the explanations of the concerned officials of the

Petitioner. The impugned order also does not reflect the material or the

grounds on which the learned commission was persuaded to return a

finding of negligence against the officials of the Petitioner. As noted

above, the Commission was vested with vide amplitude of powers u/s 13,




                                           10/12
                                                      WP 12683 of 2023.doc

14 and 17 of the Act of 1993. U/s 13 (1), the Commission could have

summoned witnesses, called for documents or requisitioned any public

record. Section 14 of the Act of 1993 empowers the Commission to

conduct an investigation and in aid thereof utilize the services of any

officers or investigating agencies and to record their statements during

the course of giving evidence before the Commission. However, the

learned Commission has not resorted to any of these powers vested in it

by the Statute to carry out a meaningful inquiry as envisaged under the

Act of 1993. The recommendatory powers of the Commission are

triggered only when the inquiry discloses negligence in the prevention of

violation of human rights or its abetment by a public servant. In the facts

of the present case, although the learned Commission concludes a finding

of negligence, the same is not a reasoned order as can be seen from the

aforesaid discussion. In view thereof, it must be set aside. The Ld.

Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of arguments has submitted

that the Petitioner has paid a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- [Rupees

Twelve Lakhs] to the legal heirs of the deceased. This fact has not been

controverted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.-1.

      In light of the aforesaid discussion, the challenge to the impugned

order succeeds.     Writ Petition is allowed. Communication dated

31.03.2023 and the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Maharashtra

State Human Rights Commission is set aside. Rule is made absolute.




                                         11/12
                                                      WP 12683 of 2023.doc

      We must clarify that the victim and/or the Complainant is at liberty

to approach the Competent Civil Court by filing proceedings seeking

compensation/damages against the appropriate authority and that the

observations made by us in the aforesaid order shall not impede the

victim or the complainant in claiming adequate compensation or seeking

damages.




ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.                        BHARATI DANGRE, J.




                                        12/12