Backward Classes Commission Cannot Adjudicate Private Commercial Disputes, Direct Recovery Of Money: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission cannot adjudicate upon a private commercial dispute or direct recovery of a quantified amount from one private party and payment thereof to another. The Court observed that merely describing a direction as a recommendation does not alter its substantive character.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing an intra-Court appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 17 June 2026, whereby the proceedings of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission were quashed.
The dispute arose from an agreement between the appellant and respondent No.3 for purchase of a Preet Harvester Machine. The appellant paid the entire sale consideration, but the booked harvester was not delivered. When the appellant was assaulted for forcing a compromise, he approached the Backward Classes Commission. The Commission recommended that the compensation claimed by the appellant be recovered from respondent No.3.
The appellant contended that the Commission had not passed any adjudicatory or executable order, but had merely made a recommendation. It was further submitted that, even if any part of the recommendation travelled beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, the proceedings could have been modified or remitted instead of being quashed in their entirety.
The Court noted that Section 9 of the Adhiniyam empowers the Commission to oversee and safeguard the interests and rights of members of the backward classes, monitor welfare programmes, tender advice to the State Government and perform other functions assigned by the State Government. It observed:
“… 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.”
The Court noted that in the present case, the Commission had directed a specified amount to be recovered from respondent No.3 and paid to the appellant through the Collector. Such a direction, in substance, determined a monetary liability of one private party towards another and directed its recovery. Holding this to be ultra vires, the Court remarked:
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… the direction partakes of the character of an adjudicatory and executable order, which is beyond the statutory functions of the Commission.”
The Court also rejected the contention that the Single Judge ought to have modified the proceedings instead of quashing them, noting that 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.
Accordingly, the Division Bench held 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.
Case Title: Dushyant Prakash Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WA No. 800 of 2026]