Mumbai News: SHRC Withdraws 2021 Closure Order Against Pune’s Arise & Shine De-Addiction Centre After Review Plea

Mumbai: The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has allowed the review petition filed by a Pune based de-addiction centre ‘Arise and Shine Foundation’, thereby setting aside its earlier orders dated January 14,2021, where it had passed a recommendation to shut down the centre.

The closure report had come after there an alleged mismanagement and thereby forcing the centre to instruct for a criminal action and closure of the centre on the grounds of lack of trained staff, poor infrastructure, and illegal operations.

After the same recommendation, the advocate appearing on behalf of the centre in its appeal argued that the orders passed in 2021, by the SHRC, was an ex-parte order, without asking for the centre’s reply on the case, claiming it to be a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The orders were passed on the complaint filed by a Tamilnadu based resident who had alleged serious mismanagement at the centre, including admitting and treating alcohol addiction patients without proper facilities.

“With no trained staff on its board, non-availability of basic amenities to the patients, poor management, with lack of proper infrastructure establishes the casual approach of its organizer and founder. Therefore, it is necessary that the office of the Director of Health, Mumbai should on priority basis initiate necessary criminal action as well as steps for closing down the de-addiction centre, which as per its own findings is being run illegally,” the closure recommendation had said.

Based on inquiry reports by the Directorate of Health and Social Welfare, Pune, the Commission had invoked its powers under Section 18(1) of the Human Rights Act and recommended that the Director of Health, Mumbai, initiate criminal proceedings and shut down the centre.

However, in its detailed order passed in November 2024, , the Commission did agree agreed with the review petitioner’s claim that no notice was issued prior to passing the adverse recommendation. It held that the non-compliance with Section 16—which mandates a hearing before passing any adverse orders—constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, thereby satisfying the grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

“Apparently, in such backdrop, want of invoking of the provisions of Sec. 16 Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by the Commission is a mistake apparent on record which deserves to be corrected and rectified so as to give, arrive at a proper judicious adjudication against the person who was not party before it but is made to suffer its consequences because of the adverse order passed against it. Therefore in my opinion, the impugned order / recommendation made by the Commission deserves to be recalled and set aside since, the condition (a) contained in Order 47 Rule 1 stands satisfied,” reads the order.

Post the allowance of the SHRC to review the orders, the advocate appearing on behalf of the Centre has been directed to submit a detailed response on the revision orders.