Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Backward Class Commission's Recovery Order Against Harvester Dealer, Holds Commission Exceeded Its Statutory Powers
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the State Backward Class Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction when it directed recovery of Rs. 1,26,500 from a dealer in a commercial dispute, reaffirming that the Commission's powers are advisory and not adjudicatory.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a writ petition filed by Kamla Motors, a harvester machine dealership at Durg, has quashed proceedings of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission that directed the Collector, Durg to recover Rs. 1,26,500 from the petitioner and pay the same to a complainant. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, held on 17 June 2026 that the Commission had acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction by issuing what was, in substance, a recovery order — a direction that travels well beyond the recommendatory role assigned to it under the Adhiniyam, 1995. The judgment draws on the Supreme Court's ruling in All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and subsequent High Court decisions to settle the point that such Commissions are not adjudicatory bodies.
The Dispute Before the Court
Kailash Barmecha, proprietor of Kamla Motors, holds a dealership for Preet Company harvester machines at Durg, Chhattisgarh. On 31 July 2020, Respondent No. 3, Dushyant Prakash Nag, booked a harvester machine (Model No. 4949) for Rs. 21,00,000 and paid an advance of Rs. 30,000, agreeing to clear the balance of Rs. 20,70,000 by 10 August 2020.
Payment did not come through by the agreed date. Respondent No. 3 could not secure bank finance in time, and the petitioner had separately informed him that delivery might be delayed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. After finance was eventually arranged in September 2020, Respondent No. 3 made payment, and the machine was ready for delivery at the petitioner's shop by 13 October 2020. The petitioner informed Respondent No. 3 accordingly. Respondent No. 3 then cancelled the transaction, causing financial loss to the petitioner.
Following the cancellation, Respondent No. 3 filed complaints before multiple authorities, including the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying any fault and sought dismissal of the complaint. The Commission, in its meeting of 4 February 2022, directed the Collector, Durg (Respondent No. 2) to recover Rs. 1,26,500 from the petitioner and pay the same to Respondent No. 3. This direction was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 23 September 2022. The petitioner challenged both the proceedings and the letter before the High Court in WPC No. 598 of 2023.
The Legal Question: Can the Commission Direct Recovery?
The petitioner's counsel, Shri A.D. Kuldeep, argued that the Commission has no authority to pass an order for recovery of money. The Commission's powers are recommendatory, and what was framed as a “recommendation” was in substance a binding recovery direction, which the Commission had no competence to issue.
The State counsel, Dr. Arham Siddiqui, countered that the petitioner had not impleaded all necessary parties and that the Commission's action was purely recommendatory and therefore not binding, meaning no jurisdictional excess had occurred.
The court's inquiry centred on Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1995, which sets out the functions of the Commission. Section 9(1) lists the Commission's functions: acting as a watchdog for protections afforded to backward class members, monitoring welfare programmes, tendering advice on reservations in public services and educational institutions, examining requests for inclusion or exclusion from backward class lists, ascertaining the creamy layer, and performing such other functions as the State Government may assign. Section 9(2) provides that the Commission's advice shall ordinarily be binding on the State Government, though the Government may depart from it by recording reasons.
Nowhere in Section 9 is the Commission empowered to adjudicate commercial disputes between private parties or to direct recovery of money from one private party to another.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Prasad read Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1995 carefully and concluded that the Commission's role is “essentially advisory and recommendatory in nature.” Its advice binds the State Government in the ordinary course, but the Government may depart from it by recording reasons. The Commission has no power to adjudicate disputes between private parties or to direct recovery of amounts from one private person to another.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India {(1996) 6 SCC 606}, which examined Article 338 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had held that conferring certain powers of a Civil Court on such a Commission for the purpose of investigation or inquiry does not convert the Commission into a Civil Court. The civil court-like powers — summoning witnesses, requiring production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits — exist only to facilitate investigation or inquiry, not to enable the Commission to pass binding adjudicatory orders.
Justice Prasad also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in State of Punjab and Another v. Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Others {2025 SCC OnLine P & H 17400}, which in turn quoted a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Anju Bala v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (LPA 1051 of 2024). The Delhi High Court had held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes is not empowered to investigate or issue directions in the nature of a civil or criminal court, and that the Commission's reports are not an alternative to the hierarchical judicial system envisaged under the Constitution. The Commission's orders can only be recommendatory and not directory.
Applying these principles, the court found that the direction issued by the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission in its meeting of 4 February 2022 — requiring the Collector, Durg to recover Rs. 1,26,500 from the petitioner and pay it to Respondent No. 3 — was not a recommendation at all. It was a recovery order. The dispute itself arose from a purely commercial transaction: the booking and subsequent cancellation of a harvester machine. The Commission had no statutory basis to adjudicate such a dispute, let alone direct monetary recovery between private parties.
The court rejected the State's argument that the direction was merely recommendatory. A direction to the Collector to recover a specific sum from a named private party and pay it to another named private party is not, in substance or form, a recommendation. Calling it one does not make it so.
Outcome
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed the writ petition. The proceedings of the Chhattisgarh State Backward Class Commission in its meeting dated 4 February 2022, and the consequential letter dated 23 September 2022 communicating those proceedings to the petitioner, were quashed and set aside.