Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Kamla Motors – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 598 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Statutory Authority Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Constitution of India - Article 338 - Powers of Commission - Principles established - Commission is not a court - Conferment of limited civil court powers for inquiry does not convert it into a civil court or empower it to pass binding decrees or injunctions. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a harvester machine dealer, faced a complaint from Respondent No. 3 regarding a cancelled purchase transaction. The Commission, upon reviewing the complaint, directed the District Collector to recover Rs. 1,26,500 from the Petitioner and pay it to Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner challenged this directive as an act beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Commission acted in excess of its jurisdiction by issuing an enforcement/recovery order rather than mere recommendations. It emphasized that such commissions lack the authority to adjudicate private commercial disputes or issue binding recovery orders.
Issues: Whether the State Backward Class Commission has the legal authority to issue binding orders for the recovery of money in a private commercial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission’s role is recommendatory. It is not an adjudicatory body and cannot issue orders equivalent to civil court decrees. Actions directing recovery from a private party in a commercial matter exceed the statutory functions defined under the governing Act.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned proceedings quashed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: AD Kuldeep
For the Respondents: Arham Siddiqui
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving commercial dispute and unauthorized commission intervention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. analysis of the statutory role of the commission being advisory. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. legal precedent confirming commissions are not civil courts and cannot issue binding orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. formal order quashing the illegal recovery proceedings. (Para 15) |
Order on Board
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the letter dated 23.09.2022 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission whereby the Commission has intimated the recommendation made in its meeting dated 04.02.2022 in Case No.784 of 2020.
2. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner is having dealership of Harvester machine (Preet Company) and doing his business at Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.). Respondent no.3 booked one harvester machine model no. 4949 for an amount of Rs 21 Lakhs on 31.07.2020. Rs. 30,000/- was also paid by respondent no.3 as advance to the above sale. Respondent no.3 also agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 20,70,000/- upto 10.08.2020. The petitioner informed Respondent no.3 that there might be some delay in delivery of the said vehicle due to Covid-19. Respondent no.3 could not get approved of finance from the Bank, therefore, payment was not made to the petitioner and in the month of September 2020, when Respondent no.3 got the loan financed, the same was paid to the petitioner and on 13.10.2020 the above vehicle was available at the petitioner’s shop and the was ready for delivery to respondent no.3 who was informed accordingly. Respondent no.3 later on cancelled the deal, due to which the petitioner sustained financial loss. The petitioner has no fault in cancelling the deal but respondent no.3 submitted applications before various authorities including respondent no.1 with a view to harass the petitioner and raising illegal demand from the petitioner and police complaint was also made. As the respondent no.3 made an application before the respondent no.1, the petitioner submitted his reply narrating all the facts and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Respondent no.1 without considering the detailed reply vide impugned proceedings in the meeting held on 04.02.2022 made recommendation for recovery of Rs. 1,26,500/- to respondent no.2 from the petitioner which is illegal, against the law as the commission has no authority to decide such types of disputes and further the Commission communicated the same to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.09.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commission has directed Respondent No.2 to recover Rs.1,26,500/- from the petitioner and pay the same to Respondent No.3. He submits that the Commission is having no authority to pass such an order. The Commission is only vested with recommendatory powers, however, the Commission in the disguise of recommendation has passed order for recovery from the petitioner, which is not in accordance with law. As such, the impugned proceeding culminating in letter dated 23.09.2022 may kindly be quashed/set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not made proper party to this Petition, however, they have filed their reply in which they have categorically stated that impugned recommendation is only recommendatory in nature and not binding and thus it cannot be said that the Commission has in any way exceeded its jurisdiction while passing such a recommendation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available with the petition carefully.
6. In the case at hand, the petitioner is a dealer of harvester machines in the name of Preet company at Durg, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 3 booked a Harvester Machine (Model No. 4949) on 31.07.2020 for ₹ 21,00,000/- and paid an advance of 30,000/-, agreeing to pay the balance amount by 10.08.2020. Due to non-approval of bank finance, Respondent No. 3 failed to make pay
