The Bombay High Court on Monday said that a contractual dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC)..A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale, therefore, stayed an order passed by the Maharashtra SHRC initiating a suo motu case related to the non-renewal of lease concerning Mumbai race course land.The Court was hearing a petition filed by the principal secretary of the State Urban Development Department assailing the order of the SHRC.While the Court posted the matter for a detailed hearing on March 15, 2023, it opined that a suo motu action on a contractual issue was not maintainable before the SHRC. “We will hear the submissions more fully at the later date. However, in the meantime, we are prima facie unable to see how such an action is maintainable before the State Human Rights Commission or how it could have been initiated suo motu,” the bench observed..The SHRC had initiated a suo motu case in connection with the non-renewal of the lease of the Mumbai race course land.The land was given to the Royal Western India Turf Club on lease in 1994 which expired in May 2013, and had not apparently been renewed thereafter. The SHRC on September 8, 2022, took this up as a suo motu case on the basis of a news item in a Marathi newspaper.It also issued notice to the chief secretary, additional chief secretary of revenue, municipal commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and principal secretary of Urban Development Department (UDD) in Maharashtra.The respondents sought an adjournment before the commission on February 17, 2023. The same was allowed by the commission after imposing costs of ₹10,000 payable by all respondents to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund..Advocate AI Patel, appearing for the principal secretary UDD, told the High Court that that a contractual matter between the State and a party could never lie within the jurisdiction of SHRC, let alone as a suo motu action. “Non renewal of the lease or otherwise or any alleged financial loss (and which is not admitted) does not in and of itself confer jurisdiction on the Human Rights Commission,” he argued..After staying the order till the next date of hearing, the Court posted the matter for March 15. .[Read Order]
The Bombay High Court on Monday said that a contractual dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC)..A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale, therefore, stayed an order passed by the Maharashtra SHRC initiating a suo motu case related to the non-renewal of lease concerning Mumbai race course land.The Court was hearing a petition filed by the principal secretary of the State Urban Development Department assailing the order of the SHRC.While the Court posted the matter for a detailed hearing on March 15, 2023, it opined that a suo motu action on a contractual issue was not maintainable before the SHRC. “We will hear the submissions more fully at the later date. However, in the meantime, we are prima facie unable to see how such an action is maintainable before the State Human Rights Commission or how it could have been initiated suo motu,” the bench observed..The SHRC had initiated a suo motu case in connection with the non-renewal of the lease of the Mumbai race course land.The land was given to the Royal Western India Turf Club on lease in 1994 which expired in May 2013, and had not apparently been renewed thereafter. The SHRC on September 8, 2022, took this up as a suo motu case on the basis of a news item in a Marathi newspaper.It also issued notice to the chief secretary, additional chief secretary of revenue, municipal commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and principal secretary of Urban Development Department (UDD) in Maharashtra.The respondents sought an adjournment before the commission on February 17, 2023. The same was allowed by the commission after imposing costs of ₹10,000 payable by all respondents to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund..Advocate AI Patel, appearing for the principal secretary UDD, told the High Court that that a contractual matter between the State and a party could never lie within the jurisdiction of SHRC, let alone as a suo motu action. “Non renewal of the lease or otherwise or any alleged financial loss (and which is not admitted) does not in and of itself confer jurisdiction on the Human Rights Commission,” he argued..After staying the order till the next date of hearing, the Court posted the matter for March 15. .[Read Order]
