While observing that passing an adjudicatory and executable order is beyond the statutory functions of the Backward Class Commission, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Commission cannot determine a quantified monetary liability and direct the competent authority to recover the same from one private party and pay it to another.

The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal filed against an order quashing the proceedings of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “Merely describing the decision as a recommendation would not, by itself, alter the substantive character of the direction issued by the Commission. The nature of an order has to be gathered from its substance and effect. Where the Commission determines a quantified monetary liability and directs the competent authority to recover the same from one private party and pay it to another, the direction partakes of the character of an adjudicatory and executable order, which is beyond the statutory functions of the Commission.”

Advocate Vinod K. Sharma represented the Appellant while Government Advocate Priyank Rathi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant claimed that an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the private respondent for purchase of a Preet Harvester Machine, Model, for a total consideration of Rs 21 lakh. An advance amount of Rs 30,000 was paid, and the remaining amount of Rs 20,70,000 was thereafter paid through three demand drafts. Despite receipt of the entire sale consideration, the booked harvester was not delivered. Ultimately, instead of the booked Harvester Model No.4949, 76 HP, documents relating to another model were handed over to the appellant. It was informed that the booked model could not be supplied for the agreed consideration of Rs 21,00,000.

Aggrieved by such circumstances, the appellant approached the City Kotwali, Durg. It was further submitted that, when no effective action was taken, the appellant was allegedly assaulted for the purpose of forcing a compromise, whereafter the appellant approached the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission, Raipur. The Commission found that the delay in delivery of the booked harvester and the supply of a different model had caused loss to the appellant in his agricultural activities. The Commission recommended that the compensation claimed by the appellant be recovered from the private respondent and paid to the appellant.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India, reported in (1996), wherein it has been held that the conferment of certain powers of a Civil Court upon a Commission for the purpose of investigation or inquiry does not convert the Commission into a Civil Court and such powers do not confer upon the Commission the power to adjudicate upon rights and liabilities in the manner of a Civil Court.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the dispute before the Commission arose from the alleged non-delivery of a harvester machine and the alleged supply of a different model pursuant to a commercial transaction between the parties. “The Commission, instead of confining itself to its recommendatory functions, directed that a specified amount be recovered from respondent No.3 and paid to the appellant through the Collector. Such a direction, in substance, determines a monetary liability of one private party towards another and directs its recovery”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that after inquiry, the Commission did not possess the statutory authority to determine and enforce a monetary liability arising out of a private commercial transaction. As per the Bench, once the Commission was found to have acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute, the Single Judge was justified in setting aside the proceedings impugned before him.

“We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the statutory scheme and has rightly held that the Commission exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction in directing recovery of the amount from respondent No.3”, it held.

Thus dismissing the appeal, the Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge.

Cause Title: Dushyant Prakash Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:38766-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Vinod K. Sharma

Respondent: Government Advocate Priyank Rathi, Advocates B.L. Dembra, C.R. Sahu

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: