MRIGESH KUMAR YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010188192021 2026:CGHC:39308


NAFR
AVINASH
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.09.09
14:58:15 +0530
WPC No. 3240 of 2021
1 - Mrigesh Kumar Yadav S/o Kartik Ram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village-
Jhagarha, Post- Risdi, P.S.- Balco, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Jati Aayog Through Its Secretary, Saksharta
Chowk, Near Police Head Quarters, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Incharge Of Police Station Ajak, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Kumari Deepmala Guleri D/o Bhagat Guleri C/o Shri Sharda Prasad Patle, R/o
Near Bazar Chowk, Urga, Post Office- Kudurmal, Urga, Korba, District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) :Shri Kabeer Kalwani appears on behalf of Shri
Anurag Singh, Advocates.
For State/respondent :Shri Anway Tiwari, PL.
For Respondent No.2/Scheduled
Caste Commission
:Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
08/09/2026
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned recommendation
dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) made by Chhattisgarh State Scheduled

2
Castes Commission, to register FIR against the petitioner as the Commission
found the charge levelled against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
to be proved.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is holding the post of Assistant
Professor and was appointed by the State Government vide its order dated
23.11.2012. He is posted at Government College, Barpali, Korba, District
Korba and is discharging its duties and obligations at the most satisfaction of
its superiors. Petitioner is facing the different enquiries due to the complaint
made by the private respondent who was caught red handed while cheating
in the examination, by the petitioner and one Khushboo Tiwari. Thereafter,
the complainant/Respondent No.5 made a complaint to Rajya Anusuchit Jati
Ayog, Raipur. It is apparent on the face of the complaint that allegations were
levelled against the petitioner that petitioner is pressurizing the complainant
on the pretext that she is cheating in the examinations. The Ayog issued a
notice to the petitioner on 21.1.2020. The petitioner has submitted the
detailed reply on 03.02.2020. In the reply the petitioner has disclosed all the
materials including the fact that on the similar allegations the investigation
was carried out and the complaint has been found to be false, even the
documents were supplied to the Ayog. However, the Aayog proceeded to
pass the impugned recommendation directing registration FIR against the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the garb of
recommendation, the Aayog has passed an order directing registration of FIR
against the petitioner. He submits that the Aayog in the impugned

3
recommendation has very explicitly found the charges levelled against the
petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1989 to be proved thereby usurping
the jurisdiction of a criminal court and as such, by no strech of imagination,
the impugned recommendation could be held to be a recommendatory one.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Aayog submits that the Aayog has
only made a recommendation for registration of an FIR. She submits that
looking to the seriousness of the complaint against the petitioner, the said
recommendation was made that too after considering each and every aspect
of the matter in detail as the impugned recommendation comprises of 17
leaves, as such, it cannot be said that recommendation of Aayog is not in
accordance with law. She further submits that reading of sub-section (1) of
Section 9 of the Scheduled Castes Commission Act, 1995 would show that
the function of the Commission is to protect the interest of the members of
the Scheduled Tribes particularly the protection afforded to them under the
Constitution or other law for time being in force and to ensure timely
implementation of programme meant for the members of the Scheduled
Tribes. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995, advice of
the Commission is ordinarily binding upon the Government and as the advice
is recommendatory in nature, therefore, the petitioner’s contention is not
sustainable as the commission has only recommended to take action against
the petitioner according to the law and procedure established. Learned
counsel also submits that complainant/respondent no.4 has stated in point
no.5 of the complaint that the petitioner was harassing her over a cheating
case and willfully didn't disclosed it to the authorities so that he can take
advantage of the same to sexually harass the complainant, on enquiry it was

4
found out that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully not submitted
complainant case to the principal on 24.10.2019, the principal has also
warned petitioner that the complaint/action regrading cheating case of
complainant/respondent no.4 should have been done at the same day so that
it would have been easier to ascertain the matter, not at the belated stage,
which clarifies the mental intention of the petitioner to harass her in lieu of the
blackmailing to save her from the cheating case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the petition carefully.
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor
Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 633,
while dealing with the powers and jurisdiction of State Women Commission
has observed thus:-
“9. It would be seen from Section 10 of the 1993 Act
that the State Commission has been authorized to take
up studies in respect of economic, educational and
health situation of the women of the State and also the
working conditions of women in the factories,
establishments, construction sites and make its
recommendations to the State Government. The State
Commission is empowered to compile information in
respect of the offences against women and to
coordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for
atrocities against women. Further, the State
Commission is competent to receive complaints in
respect of the matters specified in Section 10(1)(d) and
take up the grievances raised in the complaint/s with
the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial

5
measures. The State Commission is also given role of
assisting, training and orienting the non-Government
organizations in the State in legal counselling of poor
women and enabling such women to get legal aid.
Under Clause (f) of Section 10(1), the State
Commission is authorized to inspect or cause to be
inspected, a jail, remand home, women's institution or
other place of custody where women are kept as
prisoners or otherwise and take up with the concerned
authorities these matters for remedial action.
10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly
assigned to take up studies on issues of economic,
educational and healthcare that may help in overall
development of the women of the State; gather
statistics concerning offences against women; probe
into the complaints relating to atrocities on women,
deprivation of women of their rights in respect of
minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc.
and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter
with the concerned authorities for remedial measures;
help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and
guide in enforcement of their legal rights. However, no
power or authority has been given to the State
Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of
the parties.”
7. Recently, in the matter of Mumbai Port Authority vs. National Commission for
Scheduled Caste and Others reported in {2026 SCC OnLine 1398}, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has observed as under:-
9. We are of the considered view that the Division
Bench fell in error in holding that the directions issued

6
by NCSC in its order dated 23.10.2024 were within the
scope of powers provided under the Constitution. The
legislature has been quite categorical in the powers of
the Civil Court that have been extended to the NCSC.
The word used is “namely” whereunder certain powers
have been enumerated. That indicates the limited
scope of the powers granted to it. It is therefore clear
that while it has powers to requisition documents and
receive evidence it does not have the power to make
an order in furtherance of that evidence. In other
words, NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask
the concerned Government, either the Centre or the
State to act thereupon. At this stage it would be
appropriate to refer to the submission of the NCSC
which states that the word “safeguards” is an
enforcement limb of Sub-article (5). Such a submission
is difficult to accept in view of the explicit language of
the Article. It certainly does not confer adjudicatory
power, at best recommendatory in nature. The power
provided is to inquire into the deprivation of “rights and
safeguards” of the Scheduled Castes. The use of the
word “and” indicates that rights and safeguards are to
be read together as a bundle.
8.
In Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission
for Women and Another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, while considering the scope of powers of the State Commission for
Women, observed that although the Commission is empowered to receive
complaints, inquire into grievances and take up matters with the concerned
authorities for remedial measures, no power or authority is conferred upon it
to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.

7
9. The aforesaid principle has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled
Castes and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1398, wherein the
Supreme Court considered the extent of powers available to the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes. The Court held that the conferment of
certain powers of a civil court upon the Commission is limited to the matters
specifically enumerated by the relevant constitutional provision. Such powers
enable the Commission to requisition documents, receive evidence and
record factual findings, but do not confer upon it the authority to pass an
order in furtherance of such evidence so as to adjudicate the rights of the
parties. The role of the Commission, at the highest, remains recommendatory
in nature.
10. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India Indian
Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and Others v.
Union of India and Others, {(1996) 6 SCC 606} has held in paragraph 10 as
under:-
“10. Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article 338, the words
used are “the Commission shall … have all the powers of the
Civil Court trying a suit”. But the words “all the powers of a
Civil Court” have to be exercised “while investigating any
matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any
complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5”. All the
procedural powers of a civil court are given to the
Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring
into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only.
The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary
or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such

8
a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of
Article 338 of the Constitution.”
11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shridhar C. Shetty
(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES v. Additional Collector And
Competent Authority And Others, {(2020) 9 SCC 537} held in paragraph 19
as under:-
“19. It being a pure question of law, the facts being
undisputed, we see no reason not to allow the appellant to
raise the same before us for the first time. The competent
authority under the Act could have certainly withdrawn the
exemption in the event of breach along with all its attendant
consequences. Failure to do so did not deprive the statutory
authority of its powers to proceed appropriately under the
Act. But the competent authority being a creature of the
statute under Section 2(d) of the Act, cannot act beyond its
statutory jurisdiction and the exercise of its powers shall
remain circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. Any
undertaking by the appellant cannot expand the statutory
jurisdiction of the competent authority. The demand for the
market value of the remaining seven tenements, falling
outside the purview of the Act, cannot be construed as
money due to the Government so as to vest in it the nature
of an arrears of land revenue recoverable under Section 265
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in concluding that the impugned
demand is dehors the provisions of the Act and
unsustainable being beyond the statutory powers of the
competent authority and thus arbitrary.”
12.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after keeping in view the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforecited cases, as also
perusing the impugned recommendation, it appears that the Aayog has

9
exceeded its jurisdiction as it has explicitly stated in the impugned order that
charge against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1989 is proved
which is perhaps beyond the jurisdictional scope of the Aayog as the same
rests with the criminal Court.
13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge

Avinash