Collector Directed to Expedite Inquiry into Allegations of Social Boycott and Customary Rights Violations.

The petitioners are members of the registered "Jay Burhadev Gond Samaj Ratanpurgarh Parikshetra Kota," which follows traditional Gond customs.

They alleged that Respondents No. 7 and 8, representing an unregistered body called "Akhil Gondwana Gond Mahasabha," are forcing community members to adopt Christian-influenced practices and are imposing social boycotts on those who adhere to traditional customs.

Specifically, Petitioner No. 2 was allegedly subjected to social ostracism during post-death rituals, and a community marriage alliance was forcibly disrupted.

The petitioners filed a formal representation/complaint with the Collector, Bilaspur, on April 15, 2026, alleging inaction by the police and seeking protection against social boycott.

They subsequently moved the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to act.

1. Whether the State authorities failed in their duty by not deciding upon the petitioners' representation regarding illegal social boycott and intimidation by private respondents.

2. Whether the court should direct the District Collector to intervene and take legal action against the alleged practitioners of social boycott.

The court's intervention is grounded in the principles of Administrative Law regarding the "duty to decide," where a statutory authority (the Collector) is obligated to consider and dispose of representations involving grievances of legal or social misconduct.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that the executive machinery addresses complaints involving the infringement of civil rights and the practice of social ostracism.

The court observed that the petitioners were not challenging a specific departmental order but were instead aggrieved by the "inaction" of the State authorities regarding a documented complaint.

The court avoided delving into the merits of the intra-community dispute—specifically the allegations involving the deviation from Gond customs or the influence of Christianity—focusing instead on the procedural failure of the administration.

The court reasoned that since a detailed complaint dated 15.04.2026 was already pending before the Collector, the appropriate judicial remedy was to mandate a time-bound examination of said complaint by the competent administrative authority rather than adjudicating the facts itself.

The Court issued a specific direction to the Collector, Bilaspur, to examine the petitioners' complaint against Respondents No. 7 and 8 and to take appropriate legal action strictly in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.