Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Challenges Human Rights Commission's Order in Road Accident Case -- High Court Quashes Commission's Recommendations as Exceeding Jurisdiction Under Protection of Human Rights Act

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition challenging the order of Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission

Remedy Sought

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking quashing and setting aside of the Commission's order dated 19/1/2018

Filing Reason

The Corporation was aggrieved by the Commission's recommendations made in Complaint case No. 995/2016 regarding a road accident

Previous Decisions

Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission passed order on 19/1/2018 making recommendations against the Corporation -- High Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order on 22/3/2018

Issues

Whether the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 12 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 in making recommendations against the Municipal Corporation Whether the Commission's order was bad-in-law and required to be quashed

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner contended that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in making recommendations against the Corporation The petitioner argued that the Commission's order was bad-in-law and passed without proper authority The respondents supported the Commission's order and its jurisdiction to make recommendations

Ratio Decidendi

The Human Rights Commission's jurisdiction under Section 12 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is limited and does not extend to making recommendations against statutory authorities like Municipal Corporations in matters of road maintenance -- The Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in this case -- Judicial review is available when administrative bodies exceed their statutory authority

Judgment Excerpts

The petition has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction being seeking quashing and setting aside of the said order as bad-in-law and passed exceeding its jurisdiction After weighing the pros and cons of the contentious issues and the legal principles involved, two vital questions arises for my consideration For determination of the reliefs sought in the petition, we are not concerned with the observations of the Commission on point (A), and the grievance pertains to the direction of the Commission

Procedural History

Complaint filed before Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission on 6/4/2015 accident -- Commission registered case as MAS/Case No. 995/2016 -- Commission passed order on 19/1/2018 making recommendations -- Municipal Corporation filed Writ Petition No. 1047 of 2021 on 22/3/2018 -- High Court stayed the Commission's order on 22/3/2018 -- Final hearing and judgment on 23/2/2026