Telangana High Court quashes TSHRC orders

The TS Human Rights Commission (TSHRC) yet again came up for critical judicial scrutiny. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar have in the last fortnight allowed multiple writ petitions complaining that the commission had been passing orders on various aspects of life without jurisdiction. 

The bench on Thursday allowed a writ petition filed by the TS Power Generation Corporation Ltd (TSGENCO). In the instance of one Macharla Santosh, the SHRC on November 2022 required Genco to regularise his service. 

Uma Devi, counsel for the petitioner, said that the SHRC had no powers to deal with service matters and the order was without jurisdiction. The bench made it clear that its order was not adjudication upon the claims of Santosh, and he could work out his remedies in accordance with the law.

Another writ petition stated that the SHRC had directed a supply of water to a house where civil disputes were pending. Owners of the property at PG Road, Secunderabad, and a builder had challenged an order of the SHRC made in March 2022 requiring them to restore the supply of water. 

The bench speaking through Chief



Justice Alok Aradhe took note of the fact that the claim of the complainant was based on an unregistered agreement of sale and was the subject matter of a pending civil suit. Senior counsel P. Venugopal pointed out that the property did not have an occupancy certificate, and therefore the order of the SHRC was not only without jurisdiction but was also contrary to the law.

The bench set aside yet another SHRC order directing a company to pay wages and other service benefits, on a writ petition filed by Anirudh Agro Farms pvt ltd, which questioned the order of HRC made in November 2022. Employees of Priyadarshini Spinning Mills, a sick unit, had moved the commission complaining that the petitioner had purchased the company and was liable to pay gratuity benefits and other outstanding dues. They also sought the restoration of electricity to the labor quarters. 

The petitioner pointed out that the commission had acted outside its statutory power. It also pointed out that the petitioner had purchased only assets of the sick company and had not purchased the company itself. The bench allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of HRC.