The Chief Secretary State Of Sikkim & Anr. vs National Commission For Backward Classes & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10775/2021 & CM APPL. 33248/2021
Date of Decision : 22.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF SIKKIM & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Sr. Advocate
(AAG) with Mr.Sameer Abhyankar,
Mr.Rahul Kumar, Mr. Aakash Thakur
& Mr. Chatinaiya Safaya, Advocates.



versus



NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh with Mr. Aryan
Dhaka& Ms. Sunidhi Tyagi, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“ A . Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the
nature thereof quashing the proceedings under F.No.
NCBC/06/05/226/2020-CP pending before Respondent No. 1 wherein the
approved minutes of the hearing dated 27.08.2021 have been issued by the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:17
Page 1 of 6

Respondent No. 1 herein, and the notices of hearing for 27.09.2021 have
been issued to the Petitioners herein;”
2. The case of the petitioners is that vide impugned minutes of the
hearing dated 27.08.2021, the National Commission for Backward Classes
(hereinafter, “ Commission ”) has directed the personal appearance of the
Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. The said directions have been issued in proceedings
initiated against the petitioners by virtue of the complaint dated 17.12.2019,
filed by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The complaint dated 17.12.2019 is
extracted below:
“It is requested that my late father Sh. Bachnu Thakur had purchased a
piece of land on 10.6.1961 on which a house and shop was existing till
1985. However, Sikkim Government demolished my house and shop
without any notice and constructed a Hawa Ghar thereon without
permission of my deceased father.
In this connection, my late father made several requests to Government of
Sikkim for getting his land returned. My father died in year 2005 and my
elder brother tried his level best to get the said land returned to us. We
both brothers Jogendra Thakur and Mahendra Thakur request that the
said land be returned back to us after mutation. But Sir, I come from
Backward class (Barber caste) and due to this reason also we could not
get justice. Hence it is prayed that the justice be granted to my late father
and both of us brothers and the injustice which is being done since 1985
be prevented.”
3. When the matter was called up for hearing, it was argued by the
petitioners that the direction for personal appearance has been passed
without any basis. Upon hearing the submissions of the petitioners, this
Court, vide order dated 23.09.2021, had stayed the proceedings before the
Commission. The order dated 23.09.2021 is extracted below:
“ 7. Till the next date, though proceedings before the respondent no.1 may
continue; keeping in view the fact that the complaint made by the
respondent nos.2 & 3 was primarily against the Govt. of Sikkim, the
operation of the impugned notice insofar as it directs the personal
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:17
Page 2 of 6

appearance of the petitioners herein and the Director, Tashi Namgyal
Academy Zero Point, P.O. will remain stayed. It will, therefore, be open
for the Govt. of Sikkim to be represented before the respondent no.1
through any authorised representative, who is directed to appear before
the Commission on 27.09.2021with all relevant records.”
4. Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submits that the proceedings before the Commission are without
jurisdiction as the dispute in question relates to a title claim, which can be
adjudicated only by a civil court. It is argued that a bare perusal of the
complaint dated 17.12.2019 would indicate that there is no element of
discrimination in the allegations made therein and as such, the complaint has
no relation to the objective envisaged under Article 338B of the
Constitution.
5. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhalla that the Commission, before
entertaining a complaint, has to ensure that the complainant’s caste is
covered in the Central List of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for the State
of Sikkim. He further submits that without doing so, the Commission could
not have assumed jurisdiction.

6. The Court has heard the submissions of the parties and perused the
record of the case.
7. This Court, in Air India Ltd & Ors. v. National Commission for
1
Scheduled Tribes & Anr. , dealt with similar circumstances, and made the
following observations in para 5 of the judgement:
“ 5 .The Court has held that unless the personal appearance is absolutely
necessary, the same normally should not be resorted to. There does not
seem to be any pressing issue or deliberate act of non-cooperation

1
Order dated 19.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 9314/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:17
Page 3 of 6

requiring the personal appearance of the petitioners. In view thereof, the
impugned order dated 15.06.2023 stand set aside. The undertaking of the
petitioners is taken on record that they shall fully co-operate with the
enquiry. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open including
regarding jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint.
”
8. Similar view has been taken by this Court in PhonePe Insurance
Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. National Commission for
2
Scheduled Castes and Ors. , wherein it was observed that unless personal
appearance is the only available recourse, the same should not be resorted
to.
9. In PhonePe (supra), the Court had relied on the observations of the
3
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar Sharma .
The Supreme Court, in para 18 of the said judgement, observed that public
officers should not be called to the Court unnecessarily. The relevant paras
have been extracted below:
“17 . A practice has developed in certain High Courts to call officers at the
drop of a hat and to exert direct or indirect pressure. The line of
separation of powers between Judiciary and Executive is sought to be
crossed by summoning the officers and in a way pressurizing them to pass
an order as per the whims and fancies of the Court.
18 . The public officers of the Executive are also performing their duties as
the third limbs of the governance. The actions or decisions by the officers
are not to benefit them, but as a custodian of public funds and in the
interest of administration, some decisions are bound to be taken. It is
always open to the High Court to set aside the decision which does not
meet the test of judicial review but summoning of officers frequently is not
appreciable at all. The same is liable to be condemned in the strongest
words.
XXXXX

2
Order dated 11.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 1226/2024.
3
(2021) 7 SCC 806.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:17
Page 4 of 6

20 . Thus, we feel, it is time to reiterate that public officers should not be
called to court unnecessarily. The dignity and majesty of the Court is not
enhanced when an officer is called to court. Respect to the court has to be
commanded and not demanded and the same is not enhanced by calling
public officers. The presence of public officer comes at the cost of other
official engagement demanding their attention. Sometimes, the officers
even have to travel long distance. Therefore, summoning of the officer is
against the public interest as many important tasks entrusted to him gets
delayed, creating extra burden on the officer or delaying the decisions
awaiting his opinion. The Court proceedings also take time, as there is no
mechanism of fixed time hearing in Courts as of now. The Courts have the
power of pen which is more effective than the presence of an officer in
Court. If any particular issue arises for consideration before the Court
and the Advocate representing the State is not able to answer, it is advised
to write such doubt in the order and give time to the State or its officers to
respond.”
10. In the instant petition, it appears that the directions for personal
appearance of the petitioners have been issued despite the fact that they were
duly represented by counsel. It is also not the case of the Commission that
the petitioners failed to cooperate or assist in the proceedings before it. As
such, the impugned minutes of hearing, to the extent of such directions,
deserves to be set aside.
11. Therefore, without going into the issue of jurisdiction, the Court finds
that the direction for personal appearance of the petitioners was wholly
unwarranted. The Commission should have exercised restraint while passing
such directions in the absence of any compelling circumstances.
12. Thus, the directions, so far as they relate to the personal appearance of
the Chief Secretary and District Collector, are set aside. The petitioners
herein are, however, directed to authorise their representatives to file a reply
before the Commission raising all objections, including those on lack of
jurisdiction.
13. Needless to state, if such an objection is raised by the petitioners, let
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:17
Page 5 of 6

the same be appropriately dealt with by the Commission before taking any
coercive steps against the petitioners.
14. With these observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Pending application also stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 22, 2026
Tr/sv
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
12:24:17
Page 6 of 6