The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission cannot determine and enforce a monetary liability arising from a private commercial transaction. The Division Bench said the Commission's statutory role is advisory and recommendatory and does not extend to functioning like a Civil Court.
The ruling came in an intra-Court appeal filed by Dushyant Prakash Nag against the order of a Single Judge, which had set aside proceedings of the Commission concerning a dispute over the purchase of a harvester.
Background of the Case
According to the appellant's case, an agreement was entered into with Kamla Motors for purchase of a Preet Harvester Model No. 4949 for Rs.21 lakh. After an advance of Rs.30,000, the remaining Rs.20.70 lakh was paid through three demand drafts.
The appellant alleged that despite receiving the full sale consideration, the booked harvester was not delivered. Later, documents relating to a different model were allegedly handed over, with the appellant being informed that the originally booked model could not be supplied at the agreed price.
The appellant then approached the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission. The Commission recommended recovery of compensation from the private respondent through the Collector, Durg.
Court's Observation
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal examined Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission Adhiniyam, 1995. The Court noted that the Commission's functions are essentially advisory and recommendatory.
The Bench 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 further held that merely calling a direction a recommendation would not change its legal character where the Commission had determined a specific monetary liability and directed its recovery.
Decision
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's order. It held that the Commission had exceeded the jurisdiction given to it by law by directing recovery of money arising from the private commercial transaction.
The Court accordingly dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's order dated June 17, 2026.
There was no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Dushyant Prakash Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: WA No. 800 of 2026
Judges: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Decision Date: 2 September 2026
