The State Women Commission lacks jurisdiction to review or act as an appellate authority over judicial or quasi-judicial orders passed by statutory authorities; such orders can only be challenged through the prescribed statutory appellate mechanism.

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order On Board

1. The present writ petition is being filed challenging the complaint dated 29.08.2025 submitted by Respondent No. 3 before the State Commission for Women, Chhattisgarh alleging misconduct and bias against the petitioners in relation to the judicial/quasi- judicial order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Petitioner No. 1 in Revenue Case No. 202506132300013/A-6 for the year 2024–25. The petition is further directed against the consequential notice dated 25.02.2026 issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 directing the petitioners to appear before the Commission.

2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the complaint dated 29.08.2025 filed by respondent No. 3 before the State Commission for Women, Chhattisgarh (Annexure P-1);

10.2. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,quashing the notice dated 29.02.2026 issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (Annexure P-2);

10.3. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased tohold and declare that the proceedings initiated by the Commission pursuant to the said complaint and notice are without jurisdiction, illegal, and an abuse of the process of law;

10.4. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased topass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case..”

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is presently posted as Tehsildar at Bhakhra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh while petitioner No. 2 is posted as Patwari at Village Silidih, Tehsil Bhakhra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, and both have been discharging their duties honestly and diligently with unblemished service records. While acting in his capacity as a Revenue Court, petitioner No. 1 was seized of Revenue Case No. 202506132300013/A-6 for the year 2024–25 filed by Kamalnarayan seeking mutation on the basis of a registered gift deed executed by his mother, in which respondent No. 3, being the sister of the applicant, raised objections and was granted full opportunity to contest the proceedings, however despite such opportunity she failed to effectively pursue the same including cross-examination of the executant who had filed her statement under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC. Thereafter respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order X Rule 2(a) CPC read with Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code seeking impleadment, to which reply was filed by the applicant, and upon due consideration of the entire material on record petitioner No. 1 passed a reasoned order dated 21.08.2025 allowing mutation in favour of Kamalnarayan. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 3 instead of only pursuing the statutory remedy, also filed a complaint dated 29.08.2025 before the State Commission for Women, Chhattisgarh alleging misconduct and favouritism against the petitioners, on the basis of which a notice dated 25.02.2026 was issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 directing the petitioners to appear, which was served through police officials fixing the date 13.03.2026 at Prerna Sabha Kaksh, Office of the Collector, Jagdalpur. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 has already availed the alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kurud which is pending adjudication, and the present complaint has been filed only with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners, and the complaint also contains baseless and sweeping allegations even against the District Collector, clearly reflecting abuse of process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the p