Anil Kumar Agrawal vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Pichhda Varg Ayog

Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge disposed of

the writ petition, observing as follows :

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent No.1, the Commission, they have already

entered appearance and have submitted their reply and the matter is pending consideration before them. The counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that the Commission is not providing any further date to the petitioner and have also not been provided with

the copies of the statement and the order sheets of the proceedings, if any drawn.

Given the fact that the petitioner has entered appearance before the respondent No.1 Commission, and have already tendered his reply and

moreover there is already a document Annexure P/6 dated 01.12.2021 whereby the petitioner himself had sought for an exemption of his appearance

and had sought the Commission to give a next date for his presence would give an indication that the petitioner is participating in the proceedings

regularly and that be so it would not be proper at this juncture for this court to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner can very well make this prayer

before the Commission and the Commission in turn would consider his request and proceed further only in accordance with law including the

contention of the petitioner that they have raised in the reply so far as the tenability of the complaint itself by the Commission. Let the respondent

No.1, Commission, take an appropriate decision in this regard at the earliest.â€​

The respondent No.1 sent notice under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Pichhda Varg Adhiniyam, 1995, for short, Adhiniyam along with a

copy of a complaint to the appellant and the same was replied by the appellant on 08.01.2021. One more notice dated 20.01.2021 was issued fixing

04.02.2021 and on that day, the appellant appeared and filed objection. It appears that another notice dated 02.03.2021 was issued fixing 17.03.2021.

Grievance expressed is that the matter is being dragged, though objection has been filed stating that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain

the complaint.

It appears that on 01.12.2021, the appellant had sent a letter of adjournment to respondent No.1 and thereafter, the writ petition came to be filed on

16.12.2021.

The complaint is filed by the respondent No.2.

It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual events that the learned Single Judge observed that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ

petition and the petitioner may make a prayer for early disposal before the Commission.

Mr. Agrawal submits that though the learned Single Judge has directed the Commission to take an appropriate decision in this regard at the earliest,

no time frame is indicated.

Having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that no case is

made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we reiterate that the respondent No.1 Commission would take appropriate

decision at the earliest, as directed by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is disposed of.