State Scheduled Tribes Commission possesses only recommendatory powers and lacks jurisdiction to exercise adjudicatory or police functions.

The petitioner, a Neuro Surgeon and Director of Heritage Hospital, treated respondent No. 4’s father through two critical admissions in July 2020. Despite medical risks, the respondent opted for discharge against medical leave (LAMA). Subsequently, respondent No. 4 filed complaints alleging COVID-19 protocol violations and later claimed the petitioner refused to certify medical bills for reimbursement.

The respondent approached the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Aayog), alleging the bills were necessary for reimbursement under State service rules. The Aayog issued notices and orders directing the petitioner to correct and certify the bills—which the petitioner claimed were forged and exaggerated—and eventually issued an order on 05.07.2021 directing the police to arrest and produce the petitioner before the Aayog to coerce certification.

1. Whether the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog possesses the jurisdiction to act as an executing authority or to issue directions for police custody/arrest to resolve a dispute over medical bill certification.

2. Whether the functions of the Aayog under the relevant statute are adjudicatory or recommendatory in nature.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (noting the similarity in functions for the Tribal Commission), which define the Commission's role as a "watch-dog" for protection and welfare, with powers limited to recommendation and advice.

The precedent Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Aayog (2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1135), which established that the Commission is not a tribunal or Civil Court, does not possess adjudicatory jurisdiction, and cannot determine private rights or perform judicial functions.

The Court examined the statutory limits of the Aayog, noting that while Section 10 grants it certain powers of a Civil Court for summoning and discovery, these are limited to its functions under Section 9, which are purely advisory and supervisory.

In the present case, the Aayog exceeded its mandate by attempting to resolve a factual dispute regarding the authenticity of medical bills and by functioning as an "executing authority". The Court observed that directing the police to arrest the petitioner to coerce him into signing documents constituted a usurpation of police and judicial powers. Following the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation precedent, the Court reasoned that since the Commission cannot perform adjudicatory functions or determine service/monetary rights, the impugned order directing custody was legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 and disposed of the petition.