DEV PRASAD JAISWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010308372021 2026:CGHC:39309
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4797 of 2021
1 - Dev Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Govardhan Prasad Jaiswal Aged About
55 Years R/o Village And Post Tapkara, Police Station Tapkara, Tahsil
Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Police Station Rani, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission, 61- Jal
Vihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.D.O.P. Jashpur, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tahsildar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Jagmohan Kalo S/o Late Sahdev Kalo R/o Village Tapkara, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L.

2
For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
08.09.2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred assailing the notice dated 02.09.2021
(Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.2 – Chhattisgarh Rajya
Anusuchit Janjati Aayog.
2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-
“I This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue order/orders, writ/writs and
direction/directions to respondent no 2 for strict
compliance of their own jurisdiction and ought not
to exceed the same while interring into Police or
jurisdiction of judicial system.
II This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the petition & quash the annexure P/1 dated
02-09-2021, in the interest of justice.
III That petitioner respectfully invites the kind
attention toward.. the main issue that this mass is
all because there is no format in which the basic
requirements would have been mentioned
therefore all these cases are arising and create
problem and destroy harmony in the society, thus
any guideline should also be drawn or direct the

3
Resp. no 2 to frame such guideline for filling any
application before the Resp. no 2 in the interest of
far reaching effects and larger impact upon the
society and also in the interest of justice.
IV Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court
may think fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition,
may also please be granted to the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
notice dated 02.09.2021 has been issued by Respondent No.2 on the
complaint made by Respondent No.5. By the said notice, the petitioner
has been directed to file his reply and to remain present before the
Commission on 24.09.2021 along with relevant documents. It is
contended that the Aayog has no power and authority to issue such
notice and to call upon the petitioner in the manner done. The Aayog has
exceeded its jurisdiction and is encroaching upon the jurisdiction of police
and judicial authorities. Hence, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction
and deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned
notice is in consonance with law. The Commission is duly empowered
under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Tatha
Anusuchit Janjati Aayog Adhiniyam, 1995. The Commission, while
exercising civil powers conferred upon it, is competent to take cognizance
upon a complaint made by a member of Scheduled Tribe and call upon
the concerned parties for explanation and for production of relevant
documents. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the

4
Commission has transgressed its statutory limits. The notice is well within
the ambit and powers of the Aayog and does not warrant any interference
by this Court under writ jurisdiction.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
entire material available on record, particularly the impugned notice dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure P/1).
6. On perusal of the notice, it is apparent that the Aayog, upon
receipt of a complaint from Respondent No.5, has merely called upon the
petitioner to submit his reply and to appear before it along with relevant
documents. Such an act of calling for explanation and summoning the
parties for enquiry falls within the powers conferred under Section 10 of
the Act of 1995, which vests the Commission with powers of a Civil Court.
The notice is procedural in nature and does not decide any rights of the
parties finally.
7. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in
issuance of the said notice. No case is made out to hold that the Aayog
has exceeded its jurisdiction. The petitioner is bound to participate in the
proceedings and place his defence before the Commission along with all
relevant documents. The apprehension that the Aayog would exceed its
jurisdiction is premature at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

5
9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a detailed reply to the
notice dated 02.09.2021 and to apprise the concerned Aayog of all
relevant facts and documents.
10. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha