DUSHYANT PRAKASH NAG vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010304702026 2026:CGHC:38766-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 800 of 2026
Dushyant Prakash Nag S/o Shri Atma Ram Nag Aged About 29 Years
R/o M.No. 02, N.H. 30 Main Road Chinouri Ward No. 1, Gram Chinouri,
District- Utter Baster Kanker (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh State
Backward Class Commission Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk,
Shanker Nagar, Road Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Collector, Durg Distt- Durg (C.G.)
3. Kamla Motors Through Its Proprietor Kailash Barmecha, Aged
About 51 Years S/o Shri Prakash Chand R/o Digamber Jain
Mandir Road, Gandhi Chowk Durg (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Vinod K. Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government
Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.L. Dembra and Mr. C.R. Sahu,
Advocates.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Date:
2026.09.02
17:11:21
+0530
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE

2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.09.2026 02
1. Heard Mr. Vinod K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the State/respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. B.L. Dembra and Mr.
C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant assailing the order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPC No.598 of 2023 ( Kamla Motors vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition preferred by
respondent No.3/writ petitioner herein was allowed and the proceedings
of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission were quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a citizen of India and is entitled to the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an
agreement was entered into between the appellant and the private
respondent No.3 for purchase of a Preet Harvester Machine, Model
No.4949, for a total consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. An advance
amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 31.07.2020 and the remaining

3
amount of Rs.20,70,000/- was thereafter paid through three demand
drafts bearing Nos.048441, 048442 and 048443, all dated 09.09.2020.
Despite receipt of the entire sale consideration, the booked harvester
was not delivered. The appellant was initially assured that the machine
would be delivered on 18.09.2020, and thereafter on 25.09.2020 and
05.10.2020. Ultimately, on 22.10.2020, instead of the booked Harvester
Model No.4949, 76 HP, documents relating to another model were
handed over to the appellant. It was informed that the booked model
could not be supplied for the agreed consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant
approached City Kotwali, Durg. It is further submitted that, when no
effective action was taken, the appellant was allegedly assaulted by
Shri Yuvraj Deshmukh for the purpose of forcing a compromise,
whereafter the appellant approached the Chhattisgarh State Backward
Class Commission, Raipur.
6. Upon consideration of the statements and documents placed
before it, the Commission found that the delay in delivery of the booked
harvester and the supply of a different model had caused loss to the
appellant in his agricultural activities. The Commission, after considering
the matter in its meeting, recommended that the compensation claimed
by the appellant be recovered from respondent No.3 and paid to the
appellant. It further recommended that the Collector, District Durg, be
requested to take necessary steps for recovery of the recommended
amount from respondent No.3, Shri Kailash Barmecha, and for payment

4
thereof to the appellant, Shri Dushyant Prakash Nag.
7. The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant is
that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true nature and
character of the decision rendered by the Commission. According to the
appellant, the Commission had not passed any adjudicatory or
executable order directing recovery of money. The decision was
expressly in the nature of a recommendation and the Commission had
merely recommended that the concerned authority take necessary
steps for recovery and payment of the amount. It is further contended
that, while holding that the Commission possesses only
recommendatory powers, the learned Single Judge ought to have
appreciated that the Commission had, in fact, exercised only such
recommendatory jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that even
assuming that any part of the recommendation travelled beyond the
permissible scope of the Commission's jurisdiction, the same could
have been suitably modified or the matter could have been remitted to
the Commission for reconsideration in accordance with law. According
to him, there was no justification for quashing the entire decision of the
Commission on that account.
9. Per contra , learned Government Advocate appearing for the
State/respondents No.1 and 2 supports the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and submits that the Commission is vested with advisory
and recommendatory functions under the Chhattisgarh State Backward

5
Classes Commission Adhiniyam, 1995. It is contended that the
Commission cannot adjudicate upon a private commercial dispute or
issue a direction for recovery of money, as such power is not conferred
upon it by the statute.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/writ petitioner
also supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the dispute
between the parties arose out of a commercial transaction relating to
purchase of a harvester machine and that the Commission travelled
beyond its statutory jurisdiction in directing recovery of a quantified
amount from respondent No.3 and payment thereof to the appellant. It
is contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with
the proceedings of the Commission and no ground for interference in
the present intra-Court appeal is made out.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
12. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present
appeal is as to whether the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes
Commission, while exercising its powers under the Chhattisgarh State
Backward Classes Commission Adhiniyam, 1995, could have directed
recovery of a specified amount from respondent No.3 and payment
thereof to the appellant in respect of a dispute arising out of a
commercial transaction between the parties.
13. The learned Single Judge has examined the statutory scheme

6
governing the Commission and, in particular, Section 9 of the
Adhiniyam, 1995. From the said provision, it is apparent that the
functions of the Commission are essentially advisory and
recommendatory in nature. The Commission is empowered, inter alia, to
oversee and safeguard the interests and rights of members of the
backward classes, to monitor the implementation of welfare
programmes, to tender advice to the State Government and to perform
such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government.
14. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that the statutory
scheme does not confer upon the Commission the jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon a private commercial dispute and to pass an
executable order directing one private party to pay a quantified sum of
money to another. The fact that the Commission may exercise certain
powers for the purpose of conducting an inquiry does not confer upon it
the status or jurisdiction of a Civil Court.
15. The legal position in this regard is also settled by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare
Association vs. Union of India , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606 ,
wherein it has been held that the conferment of certain powers of a Civil
Court upon a Commission for the purpose of investigation or inquiry
does not convert the Commission into a Civil Court. Such powers are
intended to facilitate the inquiry and do not confer upon the Commission
the power to adjudicate upon rights and liabilities in the manner of a

7
Civil Court.
16. In the case at hand, the dispute before the Commission arose
from the alleged non-delivery of a harvester machine and the alleged
supply of a different model pursuant to a commercial transaction
between the parties. The Commission, instead of confining itself to its
recommendatory functions, directed that a specified amount be
recovered from respondent No.3 and paid to the appellant through the
Collector. Such a direction, in substance, determines a monetary liability
of one private party towards another and directs its recovery.
17. Merely describing the decision as a recommendation would not,
by itself, alter the substantive character of the direction issued by the
Commission. The nature of an order has to be gathered from its
substance and effect. Where the Commission determines a quantified
monetary liability and directs the competent authority to recover the
same from one private party and pay it to another, the direction partakes
of the character of an adjudicatory and executable order, which is
beyond the statutory functions of the Commission.
18. The contention that the learned Single Judge ought to have
modified the impugned proceedings instead of quashing them in their
entirety also does not persuade us. Once the Commission is found to
have acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute, the
learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the proceedings
impugned before him. No jurisdictional error or perversity has been
demonstrated in the order under appeal warranting interference by this

8
Court in exercise of its intra-Court appellate jurisdiction.
19. The fact that the Commission had considered the statements and
documents placed before it does not advance the case of the appellant.
The question is not whether the Commission had conducted an inquiry
into the grievance, but whether, after such inquiry, it possessed the
statutory authority to determine and enforce a monetary liability arising
out of a private commercial transaction. In our considered view, the
Commission did not possess such jurisdiction.
20. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge has correctly appreciated the statutory scheme and has
rightly held that the Commission exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction in
directing recovery of the amount from respondent No.3. The impugned
order dated 17.06.2026 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
21. Consequently, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed . The order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPC No.598 of 2023 is affirmed.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan