1 CGHC010337492026 2026:CGHC:38992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4494 of 2026 1 - Satyaprakash Mahapatra S/o Shri Akur Charan Mahapatra, Aged About 35 Years Posted As Site Engineer At Office Of Y L C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, House No. 1/7, Babjaoyrwa Pata Auraiya (U.P.) At Present R/o Hotel Trinity Grand, Kotra Road Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prateek Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Lallu Prasad, Aged About 34 Years Posted As Site Engineer At Office Of Y L C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, House No. 1/7, Babjaoyrwa Pata Auraiya (U.P.) At Present R/o Hotel Trinity Grand, Kotra Road Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh State Women Commission Through Its President, Near Office of Election Commission Of India,shastri Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amrit Bai Patel Wd /o Late Shri Amar Singh Patel Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Nawapara, Post Kachhar, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.07 11:03:34 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court kindly may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of certiorari, and quash the orders dated order dated 19.06.2025, 06.07.2026 and 08.07.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 1/Chhattisgarh State Women Commission in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitioners, are that the present writ petition is being filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings and consequential directions issued by the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission in relation to the acquisition of Right of User in land for laying a natural gas pipeline under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (“P&MP Act, 1962”). The acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of notification dated 29.06.2022 under Section 3(1) of the P&MP Act, 1962 and culminated in the declaration dated 04.07.2023 under Section 6(1), followed by the Award dated 29.05.2024 determining the 3 compensation in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 approached the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, which, despite having no appellate, revisional or adjudicatory jurisdiction under the P&MP Act, 1962, proceeded to entertain and issue directions in matters pertaining to payment/enhancement of compensation, possession of the acquired land and initiation of FIR/civil proceedings against the officers of the petitioners. The petitioners stated that the Commission could not have assumed jurisdiction over matters governed by the special statutory mechanism under the P&MP Act, 1962, nor could it have interfered with or sought to modify the Award passed by the competent statutory authority. The impugned proceedings and directions are, therefore, ex facie without jurisdiction, contrary to the statutory scheme and liable to be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the underlying dispute concerning the acquisition and compensation has already been the subject matter of proceedings before this Court, including WPC No. 4800 of 2023, WA No. 298 of 2025, WPC No. 1978 of 2025, CONT No. 1738 of 2025 and WPC No. 2217 of 2026. The continuation of proceedings before the Commission, insofar as they seek to adjudicate upon matters arising from the statutory acquisition proceedings, amounts to an impermissible parallel adjudicatory exercise. Hence, the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings and orders passed 4 by the issued by the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission and grant of consequential and interim reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission are wholly without jurisdiction, ultra vires the statutory scheme and, therefore, null and void ab initio. He next submits that the Commission has acted beyond the scope of the powers conferred upon it under the relevant statute and has assumed an adjudicatory jurisdiction which is neither vested in it nor contemplated under law, particularly when it has no power to sit in appeal over, modify or override the orders passed by the competent quasi-judicial authority under the P&MP Act, 1962. He next submits that the P&MP Act, 1962 provides a complete statutory mechanism for determination of compensation and redressal of grievances, including the remedy of appeal under Section 10, and consequently, the intervention of the Commission in such matters is wholly impermissible. He further contends that the direction for payment of an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and enhancement of compensation is arbitrary, illegal and without any statutory or legal basis, and that the direction for registration of FIR against the officers of the petitioners is likewise beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission and contrary to settled principles of law. He also submits that the Commission has exceeded its limited recommendatory role by issuing binding and coercive directions, which it could not have done in exercise of its statutory functions. 5 He further submits that the proceedings before the Commission are vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, including failure to afford the petitioners a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, and that the impugned orders have been passed mechanically without due consideration of the relevant facts, statutory provisions and legal position. Learned counsel further submits that the initiation and continuation of parallel proceedings before the Commission, despite the underlying dispute being sub judice before this Court in various proceedings, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. He next submits that the impugned directions also interfere with the lawful possession and statutory rights of the petitioners without authority of law and are founded upon an erroneous and impermissible interpretation of the powers vested in the Commission under the State Women Commission Act. He further submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, are incapable of lawful execution and are otherwise unsustainable in law. He lastly submits that the Commission has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and that the impugned orders and the entire proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed and set aside by issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly a writ of certiorari, along with consequential reliefs. 6 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that some time may kindly be granted to the respondents to file their respective replies to the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, while exercising its jurisdiction, has issued directions which, prima facie, travel beyond the statutory powers conferred upon it. The Commission is primarily vested with advisory and recommendatory functions and is not conferred with adjudicatory jurisdiction to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties or to issue binding directions in the nature of those contained in the impugned orders. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633, while dealing with the powers and jurisdiction of State Women Commission has observed thus:- “9. It would be seen from Section 10 of the 1993 Act that the State Commission has been authorized to take up studies in respect of economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State and also the working conditions of women in the factories, establishments, construction sites and make its recommendations to the State Government. The State Commission is empowered to compile information in respect of the offences against women and to coordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women. Further, the State Commission is competent to receive complaints in 7 respect of the matters specified in Section 10(1)(d) and take up the grievances raised in the complaint/s with the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial measures. The State Commission is also given role of assisting, training and orienting the non-Government organizations in the State in legal counselling of poor women and enabling such women to get legal aid. Under Clause (f) of Section 10(1), the State Commission is authorized to inspect or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home, women's institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take up with the concerned authorities these matters for remedial action. 10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to take up studies on issues of economic, educational and healthcare that may help in overall development of the women of the State; gather statistics concerning offences against women; probe into the complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the concerned authorities for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights. However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.” 7. Recently, in the matter of Mumbai Port Authority vs. National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Others reported in {2026 8 SCC OnLine 1398}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has observed as under:- “9. We are of the considered view that the Division Bench fell in error in holding that the directions issued by NCSC in its order dated 23.10.2024 were within the scope of powers provided under the Constitution. The legislature has been quite categorical in the powers of the Civil Court that have been extended to the NCSC. The word used is “namely” whereunder certain powers have been enumerated. That indicates the limited scope of the powers granted to it. It is therefore clear that while it has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence. In other words, NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask the concerned Government, either the Centre or the State to act thereupon. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to the submission of the NCSC which states that the word “safeguards” is an enforcement limb of Sub-article (5). Such a submission is difficult to accept in view of the explicit language of the Article. It certainly does not confer adjudicatory power, at best recommendatory in nature. The power provided is to inquire into the deprivation of “rights and safeguards” of the Scheduled Castes. The use of the word “and” 9 indicates that rights and safeguards are to be read together as a bundle. 8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law as well as in the present case, having regard to the orders dated 19.06.2025, 06.07.2026 and 08.07.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, this Court is of the prima facie view that the Commission has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction by issuing directions having the effect of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties and by directing consequential action which falls within the domain of the competent statutory authorities. Such exercise of power cannot be sustained in law. 9. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position emerging from the record and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Commission, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned orders alive merely to await a formal reply. Accordingly, the orders dated 19.06.2025, 06.07.2026 and 08.07.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission being beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Commission, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju