1 2025:CGHC:22832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4323 of 2022 1 - Varsha Fashions, Through Prof. Dharmendra Kumar Ravi, S/o Suraj Kumar Das, Age About 41 Years, Having Place Of Business At - 170- A And 170- B , Chitranjan Avenue, Room No. 4 B - 2, Fourth Floor, Kolkata (W. B.) 700007, Near 1 And 2, M. G. Road Metro, Next To Mahajati Sadan ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog, Through Its Secretary, Old Lok Seva Aayog Bhavan, Block - C Bhagat Singh Chowk , Shankar Nagar Road, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ved Prakash Khelare S/o Deepak Khelare Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Lohjhar, Thana Chura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner :Mr. Palash Tiwari along with Shayon Kar, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.S. Tek Chandani, Adv., on behalf of Ms. Meena Shastri, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : None though served. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- 2 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relates with the instant petition. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 27.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) 20.06.2022 and 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Scheduled Caste Commission Raipur. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the Respondent No. 1 to refrain the practice of summing people in the cases beyond its jurisdiction. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other orders/direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the notice issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog, Raipur, whereby, the respondent No. 2 has preferred an application before the aayog claiming refund & compensation of Rs. 7,00,320/- (5,00,320/- +1,00,000/- + 1,00,000/-) along with interest for non supply of the cup making machine, whereas the respondent has filed same complaint, with the exact same grounds and prayer before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gariaband (Chhattisgarh) where he has already ordered with Rs. 5,00,320 (@6% + 25,000/- +2000/-) and the same has been upheld by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon receipt of the notice from respondent No. 1 (Aayog), the petitioner duly informed the respondent No. 1 about the parallel proceeding which has been disposed of by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-Gariyaband, partly in favour of the respondent No. 2. Even after being acknowledged about the parallel proceedings, the respondent No. 1 issued another notice on 20.06.2022 going beyond the scope of Section 9 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jaati Aaayog Adhiniyam -1995 and as such, entertainment of the instant complaint is without jurisdiction and without authority of 3 law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in the matters of Top Singh vs. Hari Singh Maravi reported in 2021 LawSuit(Chh)301 and Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Petitioner has challenged such notices dated 27-02-2022 (Annexure P-1), 20-06-2022 and 22-08-2022 (Annexure P-5) by filing instant Petition. It is important to mention here that such notices are part of the proceedings. In other words, it is not an "order". The word "order" is very well defined under the law. The Commission did not come to any conclusion vide impugned notices. Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated in a catena of decisions contending that writ Petition would not be maintainable challenging the notice. In the light of these submissions, instant Petition is not maintainable therefore it is liable to be dismissed, prima-facie. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submits that it is pertinent to mention here that the Commission is constituted under section 3 of "Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995" (Here in after referred to as the Act, 1995). The main object behind such constitution of commission is to protect the Constitutional rights of vulnerable class of society/belonging from reserve class community. The commission has power under section 9(1) of the Act, 1995 to take cognizance in a complaint filed by aggrieved person/persons. The Commission has civil Court's power in making enquiry on a complaint u/s 10 of the Act, 1995. The commission can issue notice u/s 10(1) of the Act, 1995. In this way, the Respondent has Jurisdiction to issue notice to the Petitioners. 4 6. Learned counsel or respondent No. 1 further submits that the Petitioner did not place any copy of Petition or order before the Commission relating to pendency of the case. So far as factual disputes are concerned, it is issue between the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog has been constituted under Section 3 the Act, 1995. The function of the Commission has been provided under Section 9 of Act, 1995. Section 9 of the Act, 1995 is reproduced below for sake of convenience:- “9. Functions of the Commission.-(1) It shall be the function of the Commission- (a) to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force; (b) to recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. (c) to watch the proper and timely implementation of programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes; (d) to tender advice regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institutions; (e) to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government. (2) The advice of the Commission shall, ordinarily be binding upon the State Government, where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it shall record its reason therefor.” 9. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995 would show that the function of the Commission is to protect the interest of the members of the Scheduled Tribes particularly the protection afforded to them under the Constitution or under any other law for time being in force and 5 to ensure timely implementation of programmes meant for the members of the Scheduled Tribes and also to extend advice regarding reservation for them in public services and admission in educational institutions. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995, advice of the Commission is ordinarily binding upon the Government and as such the function of the Commission is advisory/recommendatory in nature. From the scheme of the Act, 1995, it appears that the Commission has not been conferred with the adjudicatory function, it is only an advisory/recommendatory body having advisory jurisdiction. 10. A judgment of this High Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog & Anr wherein it has been held that :- 10. Following the principle of law enunciated in above stated judgments rendered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the function of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog constituted under the Act of 1995 is advisory in nature. The power and jurisdiction to make enquiry and adjudication in regard to the rights of the Schedule Tribes have not been conferred to the State Commission by Act of 1995. Therefore, the Commission constituted under the Act of 1995 has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and as such State commission is not a tribunal exercising functions of judicial character or Civil Court and cannot determine rights of the Schedule Tribes. The State Commission can by virtue of functions entrusted to him by Section 9(1) of the Act can supervise and see that the protection granted to members of Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force is actually extended to them and proper implementation and execution of programmes meant for them and also to make recommendation for the State Government for insertion of certain tribes/group of tribes in the Constitution (ST) Order 1950 and further advice for representation of Scheduled Tribe in public service and admission in educational institution, but cannot perform adjudicatory function being only a body competent to make recommendation to the State Government as well as to make advise to the State Government. 11. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that:- 6 “S. 11. Res Judicata.-No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.” 12. After having noticed the principles of law flowing from the aforesaid decisions reverting back to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) on 18.01.2021 claiming the refund of advances paid for the machine along with compensation and thereafter again on 30.10.2021 claiming the exact same relief, the respondent No. 2 filed an application before the respondent No. 1 i.e. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jaati Aayog, Raipur. From a bare perusal of Section of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is evident that the impugned notices dated 27.02.2022, 20.06.2022 and 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-1 & P-5) issued by the respondent No. 1 is involving same set of issues and claims as adjudicated before the consumer commissions and there is dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 with regard to commercial dispute. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is opinion that two parallel complaints before the DCDRC and AAYOG with the exact same issue/relief is not permissible under law, as such the impugned notices dated 27.02.2022, 20.06.2022 and 22.08.2022 issued by the respondent No. 1 are hereby set aside/quashed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti