1 2026:CGHC:17795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3161 of 2021 Dr. Kishore Jha, S/o Late Dr. M.L. Jha, Aged About 56 Years R/o - R-11, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, Through Its Secretary 61, Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Station House Officer, Thana - Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Narsingh Thakur, S/o Late Devlal Thakur, R/o - Post Office - Kurru Tola, Tehsil Charama, District - Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.04.23 19:36:26 +0530 2 10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the notices dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure P/7), 11.01.2021 (annexure P/9). 28.01.2021 (annexure P/11), 16.06.2021 (Annexure P/14), and 05.07.2021 (annexure P/1) being illegal, arbitrary and against the law. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the complaint raised by the respondent no. 4 being not in any manner maintainable before the Respondent No. 1. 10/3 A writ/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the state authorities to initiate appropriate actions and departmental enquiry against the delinquent concerned responsible for illegal acts committed. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is renowned Neuro Surgeon based in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He is a Director of the Heritage Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Raipur. On 22.7.2020, respondent No.4 brought his father Shri Devlal Thakur (Retired Professor) to the petitioner’s hospital in a critical state. After an emergency admission to the ICU and subsequent investigations, the patient was diagnosed with cerebral stroke and hypertension. Appropriate Medical procedures were followed and a bill of Rs.,3,95,316/- was raised for emergency care and investigations, which respondent No.4 paid. Additionally, respondent No.4 purchased some medicines directly. The hospital advised him to return any unused medicines for refund/credit. On 27.7.2020, despite the critical nature of the patient’s condition, respondent 3 No.4 decided to remove his father from the hospital. The petitioner warned respondent No.4 of high risks involved in shifting the patient yet he proceeded with discharge. The patient was subsequently readmitted on 30.7.2020 in a critical state. Respondent No.4 failed to produce any medical records for the treatment provided during the interim period (28.7.2020 to 30.7.2020). Later, on 21.8.2020, respondent again opted for LAMA (Left Against Medical Leave) to move his father to another facility. On 5.9.2020, the petitioner received a communication from respondent No.3 regarding a complaint by respondent No.4. It was alleged that the patient tested positive for COVID-19 after being discharged from the hospital of the petitioner and that the hospital had failed to follow isolation and quarantine protocols. The petitioner replied to the said letter stating that all necessary protocols were maintained. Subsequently, respondent No.4 filed a complaint before the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Raipur, alleging that the petitioner refused to sign/verify medical bills required for reimbursement. Thereafter, a letter was issued to the petitioner directing him to sign the medical bills. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 9.1.2021, categorically stating that the bills presented by respondent No.4 were exaggerated and forged. Respondent No.2 intended to illicitly procure funds from the state exchequer through these false claims. In continuation of the said conduct, respondent No.4 preferred a complaint before respondent No.1 on the sole ground that under the C.G. Civil Seva (Chikitsa Paricharya) Niyam, 2013, medical bills must be 4 submitted for reimbursement within six months. Based on this complaint, a notice dated 5.1.2021 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.1, directing a reply, submission of relevant documents and appearance on 11.1.2021. On 11.1.2021, respondent no.1 passed an order directing the petitioner to sit with respondent No.4, correct the bills within three days, certify the same and report back to respondent No1 without fail. Without considering the facts narrated by the petitioner, respondent No.1 again passed an order dated 28.1.2021, reiterating the bills be corrected and certified by the petitioner and submitted to respondent No.1 by 11.2.2021. The petitioner submitted a reply that the petitioner has neither appeared nor contacted the petitioner for such corrections. Due to the mounting pressure from respondent No1, the petitioner returned the entire set of bills for certification and directed respondent No.4 to bring correct bills. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to pass cyclostyle orders without due application of mind. Despite the petitioner diligently marking his presence and filing replies, respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 5.7.2021 directed respondent No.3 to produce the petitioner under his custody after arresting him. This clearly depicts the intention of respondent No.1 to coerce the petitioner into committing fraud by certifying fraud bills. Hence, this Petition. 3. Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Aayog, Government of Chhattisgarh (henceforth “Aayog”) 5 is palpably illegal and constitutes a usurpation of the powers vested in the Police authorities and as such, it is liable to be quashed. He submits that jurisdiction of concerned Aayog is recommendatory in nature. However, in this case, the Aayog has erroneously assumed the role of an executing authority by directing the concerned authorities to produce the petitioner, who appeared before the Aayog on 3.8.2021 under Police custody. He further submits that on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.4, the Aayog is directing the petitioner to sign exaggerated medical bills as produced by respondent No.4. However, the petitioner denied to sign those bills due to lack of authenticity. Consequently, the Aayog has taken cognizance of the matter and issued the impugned notice and coerced the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (Incorporated as per Electricity Act, 2003) Vs. Chhattigarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Aayog, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1135. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. At this juncture, Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate, who is in the Panel of the Aayog and present before this Court, was directed to appear in this case. Upon being shown the impugned order, he submits that perhaps the Aayog is not having such power. However, he prays for a short adjournment to seeks instructions from the Aayog. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. It is apt to reproduce functions and powers of the Aayog as stipulated in Sections 9 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995, which read as follows : 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 Castes 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 castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (c) to watch the proper and timely implementation of programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Castes 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 Castes 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 reasons therefor. 10. Powers of the Commission. The Commission shall, while performing its functions under sub-section (1) of Section 9, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the 7 following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document, (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. 7. Admittedly, the impugned letter itself shows that the Ayog has exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a direction which it has no legal power or authority to pass. The Aayog is vested only with recommendatory powers and, it cannot function as an executing authority. 8. In Chhattigarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has specifically stated that the Aayog is not having and authority and power to issue notice of this nature. The following was observed in para 10 and 13 : 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 8 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. 13. 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 respondent No. 2 has claimed correction/up-gradation of his ACR as well as promotion from retrospective effect and further claimed registration of criminal case against the officers of the petitioner Company under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including taking disciplinary action against them. None of the reliefs claimed by respondent No. 2 relates to the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force. It is not the case that reservation provided to the members of the Scheduled Tribes is not being afforded to them or that admission in a particular college in the reserved seat is not being given to them. The reliefs claimed are out and out pertaining to pure and simple service matter that could be considered and granted by the jurisdictional court. So far as the relief of registration of case against the officers of the petitioner Company under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 9 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, that can also be considered and granted by the jurisdictional criminal court on the application/complaint made competently in that behalf. Therefore, none of those reliefs fall within the scope of Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, 1995 warranting cognizance to be taken by the respondent ST Aayog. Thus, the respondent Commission is absolutely unjustified in holding that under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, 1995 such a relief, which respondent No. 2 has claimed, can be granted. 9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Chhattigarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Ayog is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 10. As a fall out and consequent of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 5.7.2021 passed by the Ayog is hereby quashed. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay