2024:CGHC:31365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2461 of 2024 Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Indian Institute Of Management Campus At - Atal Nagar, P.O. - Kurru SINHA (Abhanpur), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 493661, Through Its Hr Manager Date:

2024.08.24 Mr. Suryanarayan Shankran, S/o Late Shri Ts Shankaran, Aged About

16:39:22 +0530 48 Years, R/o Flat No. 3, Saila, Iim Raipur, Po Abhanpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. - 493661.

... Petitioner versus

1 - Chhattisgarh State Commission For Women Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Commission For Women, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Smt. Lata Goyal W/o Mr. Ravindra Goyal Aged About 46 Years R/o 682, HIG-I, Sector 29, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Ms. Khushbu Dua, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

20/08/2024

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated

19.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1/State Women Commission.

2. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 is an employee of petitioner. Respondent No.2 submitted an application seeking Child Adoption Leave. However, when some delay is caused in taking decision, an application was submitted before respondent No.1/Commission. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on which petitioner appeared and thereafter impugned order is passed directing the petitioner to consider the application/representation submitted by respondent No.2 in their favour and to extend cooperation for upbringing the minor child of respondent No.2, to take decision on the application seeking leave, to send copy of decision within specified time and further observed that proceeding is closed with the said directions. He contended that the concluding paragraph of impugned order is the direction issued against the petitioner wherein it is specifically directed that the leave case/application pending before the petitioner to be decided in favour of the minor child and her mother (respondent No.2) which prima facie shows that respondent No.1 has adjudicated upon the rights of the parties and have directed the petitioner to decide the claim in favour of respondent No.2. Under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (for short “Adhiniyam 1995”), the Commission is not having any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights/claim of parties approaching the Commission. The functions of the Commission as provided under Section 10 of the Adhiniyam 1995 is only to make recommendations. By issuing a direction to the petitioner to decide the claim of respondent No.2 in her favour is, in fact, the order passed by the Commission adjudicating upon the rights of respondent No.2. Therefore, order impugned is not sustainable being without jurisdiction.

3. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/State Women Commission opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would further submit that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the Commission is not having the adjudicatory jurisdiction is not in dispute. He submits that under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of Adhiniyam 1995, mode of considering the complaint is specifically provided and it mentions that at the time of considering complaint made by any person, Commission is having powers of Civil Court trying a suit and accordingly after receipt of compliant, notice/summon was issued to petitioner. Petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing and only thereafter order is passed. He also submits that perusal of the concluding paragraph of the order impugned would show that petitioner was only advised to consider compliant/application submitted by respondent no.2 and have not decided her ri