, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for compromise proceedings by the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat. The Court held that the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.
Liberty to approach appropriate forums under the law or in accordance with the judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^
I <3?!..^..^.«;^....-—y^" f.?,.^....----^':Y^y^^.{...L. ^—S^&S£^--
HUN V r'..1^-"^ ^li^U.^"^--
c^ f^/L
^....".—-"—-•IN THE HON'BIE HIGH COURT OF ^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Writ Petition (C) No. 15~ 2 2- Qf 2008.
PETITIONER
Manish Agrawal, son of Shri Mahesh Chandra Gupta, aged 29 years, resident ofMungeli Naka, Bilaspur, Post, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).
VERSUS
•*
Vs RESPONDENTS :- "1. Smt. Sunita Bai, wife ofRamayan Suryawanshi, son ofRamdulare Suryawanshi, aged 21 years, resident ofVillage Bodri, Near School, Post Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), fc^" Pubiic Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, ->?'^ x'^ Through it's President, Civil Court Premises, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), '^3. State Legal Services Authority, Through -; Secretary, State Legal Services Authority office, Ware House Road, Bilaspur (C.G.).
PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
--„, XI.HC-22
'svi ^rpncPi, Wte're, (««ni*)y
@^
fllWff tbT-IT^i ..Ut(0..ko.=.l^
| '• 3iI^I'?iI W<t 3nt?i ^?qR?'gf5d |
sn^TWiwgfta | '*wi!'i'lil-< ^wvti^'fozt <Rii<rii< ^arfigtTSTI^T |
|---|---|---|
| SB : Hon'bleShri ManindraMo 03-01-2011 |
hanShrivastava..3*, | |
| Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senj counsel forthe petitioner. |
or Advocate along wfth Shrf J.K.Qupta, | |
| y:. | Heard on admlssion. This petition is directed Authority Act, 1987 has been petitioner's application under ^ Adalat, Bilaspur. Learned counsel for th |
moved an application for dra same has been dismissed b^ forum does not have jurisdictiq tothejurisdiction of LokAdalatj The application admitte^ Permanent Lok Adalat which Section 22 (b) of the Act, 198 |
| The nature of dispute wlth reg bythe applicant, on the face o |
^rd to which the appllcation was moved f It, does not fall within any ofthe clause |
|
| enumerated in Section 22 (b). not point out any other notlfica |
the casewithin the jurisdiction therefore, do notflndany illega( |
x
[v% ^'
XI-HC-22
?5[ -111-41trl-4, ^dly'ld, fawiyy
uu
•0'fc
l0f(c)i^o.
WR-wwqrai
R-li-*sn^rqiT3T|^I 3II^?I WIW 'S^ ^i^-'^'i ^r\v\ ^ ^^ <r^i^.!<
?b^ ^f?a _o)- ^T sipgir snt?!
Leamed counsei for the p^tittoner sought liberty to take recourse
to appropriate proceedings.
The impugn«lorder itself sleariy recofds that the petltloner may
take recourse to Lok Adaiats cohstituted under the Act of 1987. The
petitioner wouid be at liberty to | take recourse to such remedy as is
available to him under the law. The petltlon is dismissed.
Sd/- f
iManindra Mohan Shrivastavaj
Deepfi Judge I
x
[ift^^q
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to admit the petitioner's compromise proceedings application.
Whether the subject matter of the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Agrawal
Smt. Sunita Bai
Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur
State Legal Services Authority, Chhattisgarh
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
