SRI LAXMAN K PAWAR vs THE KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

R

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 10474 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. LAXMAN K. PAWAR,
S/O.KESU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.293,
ST ST
1 MAIN, 1 BLOCK,
JAKKASANDRA EXT,
A-2 KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL., ADVOCATE)








AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
TH TH
4 FLOOR, 5 PHASE,
MULTI STORED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

2.
SHRI. ASHISH KOHLI,
S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR KOHLI,
RD
NO.410, 3 FLOOR,
TH ND
4 MAIN ROAD, 2 CROSS,
WEST WING AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. AMANDA CHAKRAVARTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)



Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED:29/11/2022 IN HRC 2431/10/31/2021
(SB-3) PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH AN
ORDER DATED:26/02/2024/ TO 02/03/2024 PASSED BY R1
VIDE ANNEXURE-B. VIDE NO. HRC NO. R-11 IN HRC
2431/10/31/2021 (B-3) DTD:26.02.2024 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court, calling in question
the order dated 29.11.2022 produced at Annexure-A,
passed by the respondent No.1-Commission, whereby a
recommendation for initiation of Disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner has been made to the employer of
the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Karnataka State
Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965. The
petitioner has also challenged the order passed on the
review petition filed by him at Annexure-B dated
26.02.2024.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024



2. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint
before respondent No.1 at Annexure-C, alleging that he
was harassed and illegally detained in the police station by
respondent No.2, which amounts to violation of human
rights. Based on the complaint submitted by respondent
No.2, an inquiry was directed to be conducted by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said officer, has filed
his report on 18.10.2021 vide Annexure-D, reporting that
the allegations made by respondent No.2 in his complaint
has no substance and the complaint made by respondent
No.2 is false. Having not accepted the said report, one
more inquiry was directed to be conducted by different
officers of the same ranking. The said officer has
submitted his report on 09.11.2022 at Annexure-G,
confirming the allegations made by respondent No.2 in his
complaint and reporting that in the course of investigation
it is proved that respondent No.1 has taken the
respondent No.2 to the police station without there being

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024



any written complaint or FIR and detained him in the
police station. It is based on the said report, respondent
No.1-Commission conducted the enquiry and passed the
order at Annexure-A dated 29.11.2022, holding that the
allegations made against respondent No.2 are proved and
receipt of Rs.40,000/- from respondent No.2 is also

proved. Consequently, the Commission recommended
initiation of departmental proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the
Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules,
1965.

3. In terms of the provisions of Rule 22 of
Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (Procedure)
Regulations, 2020, the petitioner had preferred a review
petition before the Commission, which also came to be
dismissed holding that there are no grounds to review the
order. The aforesaid two orders are challenged in the
present writ petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024




4. The solitary contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that a complaint of the nature
which respondent No.2 has filed, should have been placed
before the Division Bench of the respondent-Commission.
On the contrary, the same has been placed before the
Single Bench and the Single Bench has decided the
complaint by the impugned order, only on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction both the impugned orders are liable to
be set at naught.

5. In support of the said contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
provisions of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 11 of the
Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (Procedure)
Regulations, 2007, which reads as follows:

(4) "All complaints relating to custodial death, custodial
torture, custodial rape, illegal detention shall be
normally heard by a Division Bench of the Commission,
while the cases of other types shall go before a Single
Bench unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson
keeping in view the nature of a particular case. A Single
or Division Bench, as the case may be refer a case
pending before it to Division Bench of Full Bench
respectively for the reasons to be recorded by it."

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024




6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that, without entering into the merits of the
dispute, the impugned orders requires to be quashed and
the matter be remanded to the respondent-Commission
for fresh adjudication in terms of sub-regulation (4) of
Regulation 11 of the Karnataka State Human Rights
Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2007 .

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1-Commission submits that the Regulation
2007, has been repealed by Karnataka State Human
Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2020 and in
terms of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 11, the hearing
of the complaint of the present nature can be considered
either by the Single Bench or by the Division Bench and
provisions of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 11, is not
mandatory and it is directory in nature. Therefore, the
order of the Single Bench is perfectly in terms of the
aforesaid provision, which require no interference at the
hands of this Court.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024




8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2, however, submits that, in the event of this Court
finding that the order passed by the Single Bench of
respondent No.1-Commission is without jurisdiction, the
matter may be remanded to the Commission for fresh
adjudication by a Division Bench or Full Bench, in terms of
the aforesaid Regulations.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the impugned orders as well as the
relevant Regulations referred to supra, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the complaint filed by respondent
No.2, alleging illegal detention and custodial torture is
required to be adjudicated only by the Division Bench of
the Commission, in the light of the specific provisions
contained in sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 11 of the
Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (Procedure)
Regulations, 2007 , unless otherwise directed by the
chairperson of the Commission.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024




10. On a plain reading of the said Regulation, it is
evident that the complaint of the present nature shall
always be considered by the Division Bench, unless
otherwise directed by the Chairperson to be placed before
the Single Bench. If the complaint of the present nature
were to be decided by the Single Bench, it goes without
saying that there should have been a special order by the
Chairperson of the Commission. The word normally
depicted in regulation (4) of Regulation 11, will have to be
understood as in usual course. If there has been an
exception to the normal course, then special order at the
hands of the Chairperson was necessary.

11. Under the administrative law principles, the
word "shall" indicates mandatory intent and the word
"normally" qualified directory. In the provision in question
both the aforesaid expressions are used. Therefore, any
administrative or quasi judicial authority departs from the
normal rule the exception cannot be arbitrary.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024




12. In the light of the aforesaid consideration and
taking note of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view
that the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B are
unsustainable only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
and the matter requires re-consideration by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of the Karnataka State Human Rights
Commission. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned orders dated 29.11.2022
and 26.02.2024, produced at Annexures-A
and B, respectively are hereby quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.1-
Commission for fresh adjudication strictly
in terms of provisions of sub-regulation (4)
of Regulation 11 of the Karnataka State

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61510
WP No. 10474 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010209142024



Human Rights Commission (Procedure)
Regulations, 2007 .
(iv) All contentions of the petitioner so also
respondent No.2 are kept open to be
considered by respondent No.1-
Commission.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE
PK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14