Chhattisgarh HC: Backward Class Commission Cannot Adjudicate Private Commercial Disputes or Direct Money Recovery

A Division Bench upheld the quashing of a Commission order directing recovery of Rs 21 lakh from a harvester dealer, holding such directions exceed the Commission's statutory recommendatory functions under the Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission Adhiniyam, 1995.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a judgment delivered on 2 September 2026, dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dushyant Prakash Nag, affirming an earlier Single Judge order that had quashed the proceedings of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission. The Commission had directed recovery of a specified sum from a private dealer, Kamla Motors, arising out of a dispute over non-delivery of a harvester machine. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that the Commission's functions under the Adhiniyam, 1995 are advisory and recommendatory and that determining a monetary liability between private parties and directing its recovery falls squarely outside those functions. The court further held that dressing a direction as a “recommendation” does not change its substantive character.

The Commercial Dispute That Reached the Commission

Dushyant Prakash Nag, a resident of District Utter Baster Kanker, entered into an agreement with Kamla Motors, Durg, for purchase of a Preet Harvester Machine, Model No. 4949, for a total consideration of Rs 21,00,000. He paid an advance of Rs 30,000 on 31 July 2020 and cleared the remaining Rs 20,70,000 through three demand drafts — bearing Nos. 048441, 048442 and 048443 — all dated 9 September 2020.

Despite receiving the entire sale consideration, Kamla Motors did not deliver the agreed machine. Nag was successively assured of delivery on 18 September 2020, then 25 September 2020, and finally 5 October 2020. On 22 October 2020, documents relating to a different harvester model were handed over to him. He was told that the booked Model No. 4949, 76 HP, could not be supplied for the agreed price of Rs 21,00,000.

Nag first approached the City Kotwali, Durg. When no effective action followed, he was allegedly assaulted by one Shri Yuvraj Deshmukh to force a compromise. He then approached the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission, Raipur.

What the Commission Decided

The Commission, after examining statements and documents placed before it, found that the delay in delivery and the supply of a different model had caused loss to the appellant in his agricultural activities. It recommended that the compensation claimed by Nag be recovered from Kamla Motors' proprietor, Kailash Barmecha, and paid to Nag. It further recommended that the Collector, District Durg, be directed to take steps to recover the amount from Barmecha and remit it to the appellant.

Kamla Motors challenged those proceedings before a Single Judge of the High Court in WPC No. 598 of 2023. By order dated 17 June 2026, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the Commission's proceedings, holding that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction. Nag filed the present writ appeal challenging that order.

The Statutory Framework: Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1995

The Chhattisgarh State Backward Classes Commission Adhiniyam, 1995 creates the Commission and defines its functions. The Division Bench examined Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, which sets out those functions. The Bench found that the Commission is empowered to oversee and safeguard the interests of members of backward classes, to monitor welfare programmes, to tender advice to the State Government, and to perform such other functions as the State Government may assign. These functions are essentially advisory and recommendatory.

The State and Kamla Motors both supported the Single Judge's order on this basis. The Government Advocate argued that the Commission cannot adjudicate upon a private commercial dispute or issue a direction for recovery of money, as no such power is conferred by the statute. Counsel for Kamla Motors added that the Commission had travelled beyond its statutory jurisdiction in directing recovery of a quantified amount from a private party and its payment to another through the machinery of the Collector.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The appellant's primary argument before the Division Bench was that the Commission had exercised only recommendatory powers — that it had not passed an executable adjudicatory order. He also contended that even if any part of the recommendation exceeded permissible scope, the Single Judge should have modified that part or remitted the matter to the Commission, rather than quashing the entire proceedings.

The Division Bench rejected both contentions. On the first, the court held that the nature of an order must be gathered from its substance and effect, not from the label attached to it. Where the Commission determined a quantified monetary liability of one private party towards another and directed a competent authority to recover and pay that sum, the direction had the character of an adjudicatory and executable order regardless of the word “recommendation” used in its framing.

The Bench drew support from the Supreme Court's judgment in All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606, which held that conferring certain Civil Court powers on a Commission for inquiry purposes does not convert the Commission into a Civil Court. Such powers facilitate inquiry; they do not confer jurisdiction to adjudicate upon rights and liabilities in the manner of a Civil Court.

Applying that principle, the Bench held that the fact that the Commission had conducted an inquiry and considered documents did not answer the decisive question: whether it possessed the statutory authority to determine and enforce a monetary liability arising from a private commercial transaction. The answer was no.

On the argument for modification rather than full quashing, the court was equally direct. Once the Commission was found to have acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction, the Single Judge was justified in setting aside the proceedings entirely. No jurisdictional error or perversity was demonstrated in the Single Judge's order that would warrant interference in the intra-court appellate jurisdiction.

The Substance-Over-Form Principle

The Division Bench's reasoning rested on a substance-over-form analysis. The Commission's direction, in practical effect, determined that Kailash Barmecha owed a specific sum to Dushyant Prakash Nag and called upon the Collector, Durg, to enforce that determination through recovery proceedings. That is the structure of an executable civil decree, not a recommendation to the State Government on backward class welfare policy.

The dispute itself — non-delivery of a harvester machine and a refusal to supply the agreed model for the agreed price — is a private commercial matter between two parties. The Commission's statutory mandate, as the Bench read Section 9, does not extend to resolving such disputes or directing monetary recovery between private persons. The Bench did not leave room for a narrower approach: once the Commission assumed jurisdiction it did not possess, the proceedings could not survive in whole or in part.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed WA No. 800 of 2026 as devoid of merit. The order dated 17 June 2026 passed by the Single Judge in WPC No. 598 of 2023, quashing the proceedings of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission, was affirmed. There was no order as to costs.