C/SCA/3181/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3181 of 2026 ========================================================== RAY BANQUET AND HOTELS PVT.LTD. & ANR. Versus GUJARAT STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR. NANDISH CHUDGAR for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Date : 06/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have approached this Court by under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by calling in question the legality and validity of the proceedings being HRC/2026/ADC/06/LEGAL-3 pending before Gujarat State Human Rights Commission. 2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioners, tenaciously submitted that while initiating proceedings against the petitioners under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission has not complied with the directions and/or guidelines issued by this Court in case of Mahendra Shanabhai Patel and Ors. vs. The District Magistrate and Ors. in Special Civil Application p. 1 C/SCA/3181/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026 No.8914 of 2025. 3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that this Court has in no uncertain terms issued guidelines for the purpose of initiating and conducting the proceedings under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, by the Commission. For the sake of brevity, the same are reproduced hereinbelow: [21] Before concluding the present proceedings, and while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court considers it appropriate to issue certain directions and guidelines regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of powers by the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. These directions are issued to ensure that, in future, the powers under the Act are not abused and the process of law is not misused. The Court deems it necessary to lay down such guidelines to e)ectively achieve the object and purpose of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as set out hereunder: (i) Before taking suo motu cognizance and / or upon any complaint of complainant, the Human Rights Commission shall conduct a primary scrutiny to ascertain whether allegation prima facie discloses any violation of human rights, as de1ned under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. For exercising suo motu powers, the Commission shall have to be more vigilant and such exercise of powers shall not be on a casual information, but shall be based on prima facie trustworthy material and disclosure thereof shall have to be recorded in the order by which suo motu cognizance is taken; (ii) While taking cognizance and / or entertaining complaint(s) alleging violation of human rights, the Commission shall take into consideration the p. 2 C/SCA/3181/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026 Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 and consider whether the allegation (s) / complaint(s) falls in any of the provisions of Regulation 9 of the Regulations 1994; (iii) The Human Rights Commission shall not entertain any complaint which predominantly involve private civil dispute including the disputes relating to title, possession, succession, partition, Release Deed, Contracts or other matters squarely falling within the domain of the Civil Court unless there is a demonstrable involvement of the State action resulting in a recognizable human rights violation; (iv) The Human Rights Commission shall have to seek declaration from the complainant with regard to any ongoing proceeding before any Court of law for the same subject matter. If it appears that there is a proceeding on going, the Commission shall refrain itself from proceeding further usurping the powers of the competent Civil Court. The Commission shall ensure that its inquiry does not run parallel, overlap with or does not obstruct the judicial proceedings or does not result in con:icting with the determination of issues pending adjudication before the Court; (v) Any decision taking cognizance of a complaint must be after holding preliminary inquiry and supported by a brief written order recording the satisfaction of the Commission that; (a) The complainant discloses a prima facie case of violation of human rights; and (b) Inquiry by the Commission is legally maintainable under the Act; (vi) The Human Rights Commission shall exercise due diligence before issuing summons, notices, warrants ensuring that; p. 3 C/SCA/3181/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026 (a) Such measures are taken only after proper application of mind, more particularly, issuance of warrants shall not be in a casual manner. The mode of issuance of warrants shall be the last resort with a recording of brief reasons thereof; (b) The tone and tenor of all the communications shall be neutral and judicial in character; (vii) Unnecessary impleadment of public o)icials in purely private matters is to be strictly avoided. The public o)icials, in any case, shall not have to be called upon personally before the Commission in a casual manner and if at all need be, considering the seriousness, the o)icials shall have to be allowed to be remained present by online proceeding; (viii) Public O)icials shall not be arraigned as party in any private dispute; (ix) The Human Rights Commission shall periodically undertake training of its members and sta)s on: (a) Statutory limits of jurisdiction; (b) Distinction between civil rights and human rights; (c) Proper exercise of powers while undertaking inquiry; (x) The Human Rights Commission must be guided by the legislative intent and must ensure that the Commission’s function is as a protector of the genuine human rights and not as an alternative forum for Civil Dispute Resolution. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that in brazen de6ance of the aforesaid p. 4 C/SCA/3181/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026 guidelines, the Commission has invoked its jurisdiction and that is not only illegal but contemptuous in nature. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the directions/guidelines issued by this Court have not been followed in their true letter and spirit. However, without further delving into the aspect of alleged non-compliance and/or contempt, this Court deems it appropriate, in the 6tness of things, to relegate the petitioner to approach the Commission by 6ling a written preliminary objection against the continuation of the impugned proceedings. If such an application is 6led within a period of ten days from today, the Commission shall 6rst decide the same before proceeding further with the matter. 5.1. Needless to clarify that while deciding the said objection, the Commission shall pass a reasoned order, either justifying the continuation of the proceedings or otherwise. It is further clari6ed that while adjudicating such objection, the Commission shall bear in mind the decision of this Court in Mahendra Shanabhai Patel and Ors. vs. The District Magistrate and Ors., and shall follow the same without any deviation. 6. It is pertinent to note that this Court could have taken cognizance of the issue at this stage; however, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to a9ord one more opportunity to the Commission to set its house in order. Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/3181/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026 7. With this direction, the present Petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct Service today is permitted. (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) NIHAL PATEL p. 6 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: NIHAL PATEL(HC02355), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/03/2026 17:44:14