Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Anjani Bai Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:38606
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4132 of 2025
Smt. Anjani Bai Baiga W/o Ram Dhiwar, Aged About 36 Years
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Penderwa, Post- Ranigaon, Janpad
Panchayat, Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Through The
Secretary, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Collector, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Penderwa, P.S.
Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
Digitally signed
by VASANT
5 - Arun Kumar Khare Vice President, Bhartiya Janta Party Anusuchit
VASANT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.08
18:07:01
+0530
Jati Morcha, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL
2
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Dhruw, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
—————————————————————————————
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
05.08.2025
1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has
called in question the legality, validity and correctness of order/notice
dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 namely
Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pendarwa.
It is the case of the petitioner that because of some personal animosity, a
complaint was lodged against the petitioner before respondent No. 2,
impugned notice dated 04.07.2025 has been issued to the petitioner
asking to produce her certificate on 24.07.2025 failing which appropriate
action will be taken against her.
3. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit
that notice issued by. respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/1 is absolutely
without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The caste certificate
can be verified by the caste Scrutiny Government in view of the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v
Commissioner, Tribal Development in (1994) 6 SCC 241 followed
3
with approval in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v Ajit P.K. Jogi and
Others in (2011) 10 SCC 357 further followed in the matter of
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v.
Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others in (2017) 8 SCC 670 and lastly
followed in the matter of The Chief Regional Officer The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip and Anr. in (2010) 11 SCC 144,
therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside.
4. Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned State counsel and Mr. Jitendra Dhruw,
counsel for respondent No.2, would support the impugned notice and
submit that it is strictly in accordance with law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
6. Admittedly, petitioner was holding the post of the Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat, Pendarwa when she was served with the notice which she has
earlier replied to stating that permanent caste certificate has been issued
in her favour in Scheduled Tribe category, directed but respondent No. to
2- Commission by impugned notice dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1),
has directed to produce caste certificate of the petitioner, failing which,
appropriate action will be taken against her.
4
7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the function of respondent
No. 2 Commission, which has been provided under Section 9 of the Act
of 1995 as under :-
“9. Functions of the Commission.-(1) 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 tribal communities or parts of or groups
within tribes or tribal communities in the tribes or
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
(c) the proper and timely to watch 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 State be
binding upon the Government, where, however, the
Government does not accept the advice, it shall record its
reason therefor.”
8. 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 to ensure timely implementation of programmes meant for the
5
members of the Scheduled Tribes and also to extend advice regarding
reservation for them in admission public services and in educational
institutions. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995,
advice of the Commission binding upon the Government and the
function of the is ordinarily such as 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, advisory/recommendatory jurisdiction. it is only
an body having advisory jurisdiction.
9. In the matter of Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa
State Commission for Women and another in 5 (2010) 8 SCC 633, the
Supreme Court considered the extent of power of the state Commission
for Women constituted under Section 3 of the Orissa State Commission
for Women Act, 1993 and after analyzing the scheme of the Act, it has
been held that no power or authority has been conferred to the State
Commission to adjudicate or determine of the rights of the parties. It was
held succinctly as under :-
“10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly
assigned to take up studies on issues of economic,
educational and health care that may help in overall
development of the women of the State; gather statistics
concerning offences against women: complaints relating
to atrocities on women, probe into the in deprivation of
women of their rights basic health, maternity rights, etc.
and upon ascertainment respect of minimum wages, take
6
up the matter with the of facts authorities concerned 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.
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 is implied that the State Commission
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 entrusted the State Commission with the power a
not court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the
rights of the parties. The State Commission is not a
tribunal discharging the functions of judicial character or
a court.
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.”
10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit
P.K. Jogi and others in 6(2011) 10 SCC 357 considered the duty of
7
National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
provided under Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India and held that
the Commission cannot determine/adjudicate the caste or tribe status of
any particular individual. Relevant extract of report states as under:-
“17. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood,
that the Commission was and safeguard the
constituted persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes by ensuring: (i) anti-
discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way of
reservation and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of
grievances. The duties under clause 5(b) of Article
338 did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe
certificate or to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe
certificate or to decide upon the validity of the 366
caste certificate. Having regard to sub-clause (b) of
clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission could no
doubt entertain and enquire into any specific
complaint about deprivation of any received, the
rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. a
complaint Commission could enquire into such
complaint and give a report to the Central
Government or the State Government requiring
effective implementation of the safeguards and
measures for the protection and welfare and socio-
economic development of the Scheduled Tribes. This
power to enquire into “deprivation of rights and
safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes” did not include the power to caste/tribe
enquire decide the particular and into any of status
there fact, In as was individual. effective mechanism
to verify the caste/tribe to certificates issued Court in
Madhuri Patil individuals, v. Commr.. no this Tribal
Development’ directed constitution of scrutiny
committees.
23. The contention that there was sufficient material
to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope
of the duties of the Commission as noticed above,
did not involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to
rights of parties or caste status of the parties. The
8same is the position even under (which was
subsequently inserted) providing for a separate
Commission for Scheduled Tribes with identical
duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore
be sustained. The High Court was justified in setting
aside the said order dated 16-10-2001.”
11. 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 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
9
admission in educational institution, 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.
12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice a decision of the Supreme
Court in the matter of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST
Employees’ Welfare Association and others v. Union of India and
others in (1996) 6 SCC 606 in which the direction issued by the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the
Bank stopping promotion process pending further investigation and final
has been assailed. verdict by the Commission, Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court considered the matter and held that the Commission
having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim
injunctions, a power vesting in civil court, has no authority to issue an
order of this nature.
13. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
v. Lal Chand and others in WP(C) No.5468/2011 decided on
17.09.2013 while considering sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of Article 338
of the Constitution of India held that the National Commission for Castes
and Scheduled Scheduled Tribes has no adjudicatory power and it deal
with the complaint only where the complaint relates can to of incident
specific a depriving a person of the rights conferred upon and safeguards
10
provided for the persons, who as a class belong to Scheduled Castes. In
paragraph 10, the Delhi High Court held as under:
“10. In my view, even an inquiry in terms of sub-clause
(b) of (5) can be clause initiated by the Commission
only where the complaint relates to a specific incident
of depriving a person of the rights conferred upon and
safeguards provided for the persons, who as a class
belong to Scheduled Castes. It is only such deprivation
and not deprivation of any civil right of a person
belonging to a Scheduled Castes which can be subject
matter of such an enquiry. To take a view that the
Commission can inquire into any specific complaint
made by a person belonging to a Scheduled Castes
irrespective of the nature of the complaint, would
render the words “with respect to deprivation of the
rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes” wholly
redundant which certainly could not have been the
legislative intent. Had the intention of the Legislature
been to entrust the Commission with duty to inquire
into made by person a any complaint belonging to a
Scheduled Castes, the wording of sub-clause (b) would
have been altogether different. The Legislature in that
case would have said without any qualification, that it
shall be the duty of the Commission to inquire into
specific complaints made by Scheduled Castes or a
person belonging to a Scheduled Castes. There are
many rights granted to and safeguards provided only
for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, the
reservation in public appointments and admissions to
educational institutions being such instances. To take
few other examples, if there is a welfare scheme of the
State or an instrumentality of the State for the benefit of
the members of Scheduled Castes alone, complaint
alleging deprivation of benefit of the said scheme can
certainly be inquired into by the Commission. Then,
there are reservations made by some instrumentalities
of the State in any a allotments various making
allotments of plots/flats by such as Delhi of allotment
and Development Authority petrol pumps/LPG outlets
by oil marketing companies. Specific complaints with
respect to such matters can also be brought to the notice
11of the Commission and inquired into by it. To take yet
another instance if a person belonging to a Scheduled
Caste is refused caste certificate by the State, he can
make a complaint in this regard to the Commission
since certificates are If such sought to avail the rights
conferred only upon the members of Scheduled Castes.
the State comes out with a scheme to grant financial
assistance to the members of the Scheduled caste, any
complaint alleging denial of such benefit can also be
brought to the notice of the Commission and enquired
into by it. But the disputed issues such as claims of title
to a property which, by theirs nature, involved
adjudication by an adjudicatory body cannot be subject
matter of an inquiry in terms of sub-clause (b) if the
complainant belongs The legal right even Scheduled
Caste. to to a a complaint property claimed can be by
every citizen, irrespective of whether he belongs to a
Scheduled Castes or not and a alleging deprivation of
property by State or one of its instrumentalities would
certainly not be a matter with respect to deprivation of
rights and safeguards of Scheduled Castes alone……”
14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law
laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases, it is quite vivid that verification of petitioner’s caste certificate
sought to be done by respondent No. 2 Commission is not within its
province. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra)
followed in the matter of Ajit P.K. Jogi (Supra) and further followed in
the matter of Chairman and M.D., FCI (supra), has clearly held that
verification of caste certificate has to be done by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee or any competent authority the law declared by the State
Government. As such, the impugned notice dated pursuant to or board
constituted 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2
12
Commission against the petitioner seeking production of her caste
certificate is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law
and it is hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-
above. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Vasant