JUDGMENT : RAMESH SINHA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, thereby after declaring the impugned order dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) as illegal and arbitrary, quash it, and no such coercive steps including to lodge FIR under SC and ST Atrocities Act, 1985 as recommended by Commission be initiated against the petitioner. 10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities especially to res. No. 3 that power and function conferred under provisions of 1995 Act, and further to pass any other relief or order that deems fit along with cost of the petition, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 08.07.2016 passed by respondent No.3/Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission, Raipur (for short, the Commission) whereby the Superintendent of Police, Bastar has been directed to register FIR against the petitioner under the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’). 3. The matter, in nutshell, is that, the petitioner is posted as male Health Worker at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur. The respondent No. 5 then the Joint Director, Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur committed various irregularities in appointment and promotion to various posts of the department and information regarding it was sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, and thereafter the complaint was made by the 3 petitioner before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Raipur on 20.02.2015. When the respondent No. 5 came to know about said complaint made by the petitioner against him, he made a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes Commission, Raipur on 20.03.2015 making allegation that he is a member of Scheduled Tribes Community and the petitioner has made a false complaint against him due to which frivolous news has been published in the newspaper. The Commission/respondent No.3 took cognizance of the complaint made by the respondent No.5 and after due enquiry, vide order dated 08.07.2016 by exercising powers conferred under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission Act, 1995 (for short, the Act, 1995) made recommendation for registration of FIR against the petitioner under the Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.5 made a complaint before the Commission with ulterior motive and the provisions of the Act, 1995 have been wrongly exercised. He would further submit that the Commission/respondent No.3 ought to have considered the entire facts and it can make recommendation only, whereas, in the instant case, a clear order has been passed to register FIR for commission of offence under the provisions of the Act, 1989 which is utter breach of the provisions of the Act, 1995. He has placed reliance on the decision passed by this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog in Writ Petition (C) No.1735 of 2017 to 4 buttress his argument. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and other respondents would submit that the Commission by exercising the powers conferred under the Act, 1995 passed the order for registration of FIR. They would further submit that the Commission has passed the order impugned while exercising its powers contemplated under the Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, 1995. They would also submit that opinion of the Commission may be accepted by the Government or it may be rejected, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order passed by the Commission dated 08.07.2016. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as the Act, 1995. 7. This Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation (supra) has made following observations in para 5, 6, 9 and 10 which is reproduced herein below :- “5. The Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act, 1995. The function of the Commission has been provided under Section 9 of Act, 1995. Section 9 of the Act, 1995 is reproduced below for sake of convenience:- "9. The Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act, 1995. The function of the Commission has been provided under Section 9 of Act, 1995. Section 9 of the Act, 1995 is reproduced below for sake of convenience:- "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 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 tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. (c) to watch the proper and timely 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 be binding upon the State Government, where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it shall record its reason therefor." 6. 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 members of the Scheduled Tribes and also to extend advice regarding reservation for them in public services and admission in educational institutions. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1995, advice of the Commission is ordinarily binding upon the Government and as such the function of the 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, it is only an advisory/recommendatory body having advisory jurisdiction. 9. From the scheme of the Act, 1995, it appears that the Commission has not been conferred with the adjudicatory function, it is only an advisory/recommendatory body having advisory jurisdiction. 9. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others considered the duty of 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 6 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 constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by ensuring: (i) antidiscrimination, (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 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 rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the 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 enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any particular individual. In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 ) 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 the rights of parties or caste status of the parties. The same is the position even under Article 338-A (which was subsequently inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with identical duties. The scope of the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties. The same is the position even under Article 338-A (which was subsequently inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with identical duties. The order of the 7 Commission cannot therefore be sustained. The High Court was justified in setting aside the said order dated 16-10-2001." 10. Following the principle of law enunciated in abovestated 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 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.” 8. Considering the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforestated judgment and the facts of the present case, it is apparent that complaint was made by the petitioner against the respondent No.5 before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Raipur on 20.03.2015, thereafter the respondent No. 5 made complaint before the Commission/respondent No.3 seeking therein registration of FIR against the petitioner under the Act, 1989, which can be considered and granted by the jurisdictional criminal Court by way 8 of filing an application/complaint under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, thus, complaint made by the respondent No.5 does not fall within the scope of Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, 1995 warranting cognizance of the Commission, therefore, the Commission is absolutely unjustified in passing the order impugned for registration of FIR against the petitioner under the Act, 1989, accordingly, the order passed by the Commission/respondent No.3 dated 08.07.2016 is hereby quashed. 9. The Superintendent of Police, District Bastar is restrained from taking any action on the basis of such order. However, respondent No. 5 would be at liberty to take recourse to law as available to him under the law. 10. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.