Bilaspur: In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Backward Classes is an advisory and recommending body; it lacks the authority to order the recovery of money in commercial disputes. The Court observed that while the Commission’s advice under the “Chhattisgarh State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1995” may generally be binding on the State Government, it cannot exercise the powers of a competent authority by issuing recovery orders.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Backward Classes on September 23, 2022. The petitioner, Kamala Motors, had entered into a deal to sell a harvester for ₹21 lakh, for which an advance of ₹30,000 was paid. The transaction could not be completed because bank financing could not be arranged within the stipulated time, and delivery was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the vehicle was made available for delivery after the respondent secured financing, the respondent cancelled the deal and subsequently lodged complaints with various authorities, including the Commission. The Commission directed the Collector to recover ₹1,26,500 from the petitioner and hand the amount over to the buyer. The petitioner argued that the Commission had no authority to order the recovery of money and that its powers under the 1995 Act were limited to making recommendations.
Citing Section 9 of the “Chhattisgarh State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1995,” the Court noted that the Commission’s functions are primarily advisory and recommendatory in nature. The Court observed that while the Commission’s advice is generally binding on the State Government, the law does not confer judicial powers upon it. Referring to various past judgments, the Court stated that the conferral of certain powers of a civil court for the purpose of inquiry or investigation does not transform the Commission into a civil court. The Court further noted that the dispute before the Commission arose from a commercial transaction involving the sale of a harvester machine. The Commission acted beyond the scope of its legal powers by directing the recovery of ₹1,26,500 from the petitioner and its payment to Respondent No. 3. The Court observed that such a direction could not be treated merely as a recommendation and was an act beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction.
