A statutory commission may summon parties and documents during inquiry under its civil-court powers.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 2 September 2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Aayog (“Commission”) on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 5.

The notice directed the petitioner to submit a reply, appear before the Commission on 24 September 2021, and produce relevant documents.

The petitioner contended that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue such notice and was encroaching upon the powers of the police and judicial authorities.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the Commission was empowered under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjati Aayog Adhiniyam, 1995, including to exercise civil-court powers, seek explanations, and call for documents.

1. Whether the Commission had jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjati Aayog Adhiniyam, 1995, to issue a notice requiring the petitioner to file a reply, appear, and produce relevant documents

2. Whether the impugned notice was without jurisdiction or constituted an impermissible encroachment upon the authority of the police or judicial system

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of the notice in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjati Aayog Adhiniyam, 1995 confers powers of a civil court upon the Commission for the purposes of its inquiry, including the power to call for explanations, require the production of documents, and summon concerned parties.

A notice issued in the course of such an inquiry is procedural in nature and does not finally adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.

Writ interference is not warranted merely because a party apprehends that a statutory authority may exceed its jurisdiction; a demonstrable jurisdictional error or perversity must be shown.

The Court examined the impugned notice and found that the Commission had only required the petitioner to submit his response, appear before it, and produce relevant documents pursuant to a complaint by Respondent No. 5.

These directions fell within the Commission’s statutory civil-court powers under Section 10 and were merely steps in an inquiry; they did not amount to a final determination of the parties’ rights or an assumption of police or judicial functions.

Since the petitioner failed to establish any jurisdictional error, perversity, or actual transgression of statutory limits, his apprehension that the Commission might exceed its jurisdiction was held to be premature.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the petitioner was directed to participate in the proceedings and was given liberty to file a detailed reply with all relevant facts and documents before the Commission.

No order as to costs was made.