Anuradha vs Lucky General Store through its owner Tassi

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way f this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“That Impugned order dated 21.04.2025 i.e. Annexure P-3 passed by human rights commission may very kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.”

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission against the private respondent, however, learned Commission in terms of the impugned order has closed the right of the complainant on 21.04.2025, ignoring the fact that the reason as to why the evidence could not be led by the complainant (petitioner herein), was the death of the father-in-law of the complainant.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the zimni orders appended with the petition, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission.

A perusal of the zimni orders demonstrate that when the case was listed on 30.07.2024, none appeared for the complainant/petiti ner herein and on that date, on the request of learned counsel for the opposite side, the case was adjourned by two weeks. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 03.09.2024, again none appeared for the complainant and the matter was again deferred to afford opportunity to the opposite party to file reply. On 04.10.2024, the same story was repeated, none appeared for the complainant. Again time was sought by the opposite party to file reply and time was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-. Then, when the matter was listed on 05.11.2024, again none appeared for the complainant and the learned Commission ordered the listing of the case for 03.12.2024, to enable the complainant to lead evidence by way of affidavit. On 03.12.2024, again none appeared for the complainant and the learned Commission observed that as no evidence was filed, the matter be listed on 03.01.2025. Again on 03.01.2025, none appeared for the complainant, neither any evidence was filed and the matter for this purpose was adjourned for 18.03.2025. Thereafter, the next order sheet appended with the writ petition is dated 21.04.2025, which reads as under:-

“Complaint called in open court. Complainant did not file evidence by way of affidavits u/s 13(1)(C) of Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 despite four adjournments granted by Commission. Evidence of complainant is closed in affirmative. Be listed for defence evidence of opposite party by way of affidavits under section 13(1)(C) of Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. Certified copy of interim quasi judicial order be sent to opposite party by way of registered letter. Be listed on 16.05.2025. Legal wing for compliance forthwith.”

The above facts as stand narrated in the order, demonstrate the callous attitude of the complainant in pursuing the matter before the Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission and yet the petitioner has the audacity to assail the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission dated 21.04.2025 by stating that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner to lead evidence.

The contention of he learned counsel that on certain dates, there was strike by the learned counsel also does not holds any water for the reason that the zimni orders demonstrates that except for 03.12.2024 on all other dates, some counsel did appear for the opposite party.

Therefore, in the light of the above observations, as this Court finds no perversity with the order under challenge and further as the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed after granting the petitioner reasonable opportunities and as the petitioner in fact never appeared before the learned Commission since 03.07.2024, yet indulgence has been shown by the learned Commission by not dismissing the case in default, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly..