RAIPUR: Chhattisgarh High Court quashed a series of directives issued by the State Women Commission against GAIL (India) Limited, ruling that the panel exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing binding adjudicatory orders rather than confining itself to its statutory advisory and recommendatory role.
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad set aside the Commission’s orders dated June 19, 2025, July 6, 2026, and July 8, 2026, which had brought work on an ongoing gas pipeline installation project to a standstill. GAIL (India) Limited is India’s leading natural gas company.
The matter arose from proceedings initiated by the Women Commission concerning the acquisition of Right of User over land owned by an elderly woman, Amrit Bai Patel, in Raigarh district of Chhattisgarh. The acquisition was conducted under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. GAIL approached the Court challenging the Commission’s directives, which had halted pipeline installation, ordered enhanced compensation, directed compensation for alleged losses, and threatened criminal as well as civil proceedings against company officials.
Appearing for GAIL, the counsel argued that statutory compensation had already been settled by the designated competent authority. It was contended that the Commission usurped powers vested exclusively in statutory authorities, completely exceeding its mandate under the M.P. Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (as adopted by Chhattisgarh).
Agreeing with the petitioner’s stance, the Court noted that the Women Commission had, prima facie, gone beyond its statutory powers. Justice Prasad emphasised that the Women Panel is primarily vested with advisory and recommendatory functions and possesses no adjudicatory jurisdiction to decide the rights and liabilities of parties or issue binding directions.
To substantiate the ruling, the Court cited key Supreme Court precedents, including Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010), which affirmed that State Women Commissions act as guides and facilitators rather than adjudicatory bodies. The Court also referenced Mumbai Port Authority vs. National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Others (2026), reiterating that such statutory commissions lack the authority to pass enforceable adjudicatory orders.
Holding that the Panel's directions encroached directly upon the domain of competent statutory authorities, the Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition without awaiting formal replies from the respondents.
