1 2026:CGHC:16584 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1654 of 2026 1 - Bhupesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Lalit Chandrakar Aged About 39 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Notice As Bhupendra Chandrakar), Presently Posted As Tehsildar, Tehsil- Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Tikendra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Toman Singh Chandrakar Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Patwari, At Village Silidih, Tehsil Bhakhra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Women Commission Through President, At Near Kutchery Chowk, P.S.- Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Madhuri Sahu D/o Late Vishnu Prashad R/o- Village Pandari Pani Police Station- Parpa (Fezarpur), District- Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 10.04.2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed challenging the complaint dated 29.08.2025 submitted by Respondent No. 3 before the State Commission for Women, Chhattisgarh alleging misconduct and bias against the petitioners in relation to the judicial/quasi- judicial order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Petitioner No. 1 in Revenue Case No. 202506132300013/A-6 for the year 2024–25. The petition is further directed against the consequential notice dated 25.02.2026 issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 directing the petitioners to appear before the Commission. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the complaint dated 29.08.2025 filed by respondent No. 3 before the State Commission for Women, Chhattisgarh (Annexure P-1); 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,quashing the notice dated 29.02.2026 issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (Annexure P-2); 3 10.3. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased tohold and declare that the proceedings initiated by the Commission pursuant to the said complaint and notice are without jurisdiction, illegal, and an abuse of the process of law; 10.4. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased topass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case..” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is presently posted as Tehsildar at Bhakhra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh while petitioner No. 2 is posted as Patwari at Village Silidih, Tehsil Bhakhra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, and both have been discharging their duties honestly and diligently with unblemished service records. While acting in his capacity as a Revenue Court, petitioner No. 1 was seized of Revenue Case No. 202506132300013/A-6 for the year 2024–25 filed by Kamalnarayan seeking mutation on the basis of a registered gift deed executed by his mother, in which respondent No. 3, being the sister of the applicant, raised objections and was granted full opportunity to contest the proceedings, however despite such opportunity she failed to effectively pursue the same including cross-examination of the executant who had filed her statement under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC. Thereafter respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order X Rule 2(a) CPC read with Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code seeking 4 impleadment, to which reply was filed by the applicant, and upon due consideration of the entire material on record petitioner No. 1 passed a reasoned order dated 21.08.2025 allowing mutation in favour of Kamalnarayan. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 3 instead of only pursuing the statutory remedy, also filed a complaint dated 29.08.2025 before the State Commission for Women, Chhattisgarh alleging misconduct and favouritism against the petitioners, on the basis of which a notice dated 25.02.2026 was issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 directing the petitioners to appear, which was served through police officials fixing the date 13.03.2026 at Prerna Sabha Kaksh, Office of the Collector, Jagdalpur. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 has already availed the alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kurud which is pending adjudication, and the present complaint has been filed only with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners, and the complaint also contains baseless and sweeping allegations even against the District Collector, clearly reflecting abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint dated 29.08.2025 and the consequential notice dated 25.02.2026 issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable in law, as Section 10 of the Adhiniyam does not empower the Commission to call upon public servants to 5 explain or justify judicial or quasi-judicial orders passed in discharge of their statutory duties, and thus the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission is misconceived and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by petitioner No. 1 is a well-reasoned judicial order based on pleadings, evidence and applicable law, which is amenable to challenge only before the competent appellate authority under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and not before any extraneous forum like the Commission. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 has already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kurud, which is pending adjudication, and therefore initiation of parallel proceedings before the Commission amounts to abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the complaint does not disclose any cognizable violation of rights under the Act and is merely based on dissatisfaction with a judicial order, and no relief can be granted by the Commission in such matters. It is also submitted that the Commission has no authority to sit in appeal over or examine the correctness of judicial or quasi-judicial orders, and the impugned notice amounts to impermissible interference in the administration of justice. It is submitted that the petitioners, being public servants, are protected for acts done in good faith in discharge of their official duties and no valid legal basis exists for initiating such proceedings against them. It is further submitted that the impugned proceedings have been initiated with mala fide 6 intent to harass and pressurize the petitioners, which is evident from the baseless and sweeping allegations even against higher officers including the District Collector. It is submitted that continuation of the impugned proceedings would cause undue harassment and prejudice to the petitioners and would have a chilling effect on the independent functioning of quasi-judicial authorities. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned notice dated 25.02.2026 be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the petition and submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court, as the same has been passed in accordance with law and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1, while acting in his capacity as a Revenue Court, passed a quasi-judicial order dated 21.08.2025 in a mutation proceeding. It is also not disputed that against the said order, respondent No. 3 has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which is presently pending consideration. 7 8. From the record, it further transpires that instead of confining herself to the statutory remedy available under law, respondent No. 3 has also approached the State Women Commission by filing a complaint alleging misconduct and bias against the petitioners, pursuant to which the impugned notice dated 25.02.2026 has been issued under Section 10(3) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995, directing the petitioners to appear and explain the reasons for passing the order in question. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a course of action is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The State Women Commission, though vested with certain powers to inquire into complaints relating to deprivation of rights of women, cannot assume the role of an appellate or supervisory authority over judicial or quasi- judicial orders passed by competent authorities in discharge of their statutory functions. A quasi-judicial order passed by a Revenue Authority can be assailed only before the forum specifically provided under the statute. Entertaining a complaint against such an order and calling upon the concerned officer to justify the reasoning of the order would amount to unwarranted interference in the administration of justice and would be clearly beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the Commission. 10. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 8 SCC 633 Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for 8 Women , particularly in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13, has clearly held that orders passed by judicial or quasi-judicial authorities cannot be made subject matter of collateral proceedings before other forums, and that the correctness of such orders can be examined only by the appellate or revisional authority prescribed under the statute. It has further been held that entertaining complaints against judicial orders before extraneous forums would amount to interference with the administration of justice and is impermissible in law. The relevant paras are quoted hereinbelow:- “11. Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorised to decide these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court. 9 12. Learned counsel for Respondent 2 then referred to Section 10(3) and submitted that the State Commission has been conferred with all the powers of a civil court trying a suit. We are afraid, this is not at all a proper reading of Section 10(3). The expression, “have all the powers of a civil court” in Section 10(3) is qualified by the following words, “in respect of the following matters”. That is to say, the State Commission has powers of civil court trying a suit for the matters specified in clauses (a) to (f) thereof and not for other purposes. 13. It is clear to us that the legislature has not gone so far as to give jurisdiction to the State Commission to make an order such as the one that has been made. From whatever angle we may examine the validity of the directions given by the State Commission in its order dated 11-5- 2009, it appears to us that the said order was outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission. It was an order which the State Commission had no competence to make and, therefore, a void order. The High Court instead of correcting that order went a step further and directed that DNA test of the child as well as the appellant shall be conducted.” 11. Applying the aforesaid settled position, entertaining a complaint against such an order and calling upon the concerned officer to justify the reasoning of the order would amount to unwarranted interference in the administration of justice and 10 would be clearly beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the Commission. 12. Moreover, when the statute provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances by way of appeal, invocation of parallel proceedings before another forum, particularly in respect of the same cause of action, amounts to abuse of the process of law. This Court is also of the view that compelling public servants discharging quasi-judicial functions to appear before such fora to explain their judicial orders would have a chilling effect on the independent and fearless discharge of their duties. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned notice dated 25.02.2026 issued by the State Women Commission is held to be without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed/set-aside. 14. However, it is made clear that respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to pursue the statutory remedy already availed by her before the competent appellate authority, which shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 16. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha