Dismissed

Bhajan Singh Gandhi v. Radwan @ Radheshyam

Chhattisgarh HC14 Nov 2022WP227/547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that the Permanent Lok Adalat correctly rejected an application filed under Section 22(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, regarding noise pollution, as such disputes do not fall within the statute's scope.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed in limine, noting that the Permanent Lok Adalat rightly dismissed the application.

Bhajan Singh Gandhi Vs Radwan @ Radheshyam — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 547 of 2022

¶5

Bhajan Singh Gandhi S/o Gurumukh Singh Gandhi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk, Infront Of Intercity Hotel, Main Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Radwan @ Radheshyam, Proprietor Aditya Aluminium Main Road, Infront Of Hotel Intercity, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Regional OfÏcer, Environment Conservation Board, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Deputy Director, Industrial Health And Safety Department, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6. Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner Ms. Bulbul Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶16

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶17

Order On Board 14/11/2022

¶18

¶19

This petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 27.5.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, whereby, the application under Section 22(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short “the Act, 1987”) , has been dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 is a proprietor of Aluminum Workshop and is running the said workshop in a residential area, which is opposite to the petitioner’s house. He would further submit that the manufacturing of large quantities of aluminum doors and windows in the said workshop is resulting in noise pollution and causing nuisance in the residential area. In this regard, the petitioner moved an application under Section 22(4) of the Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat but the same was dismissed, which is unwarranted in law. Therefore, learned counsel prays for intervention of this Court.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.

¶22

Chapter VIA has been inserted by Act 37 of 2002 w.e.f. 11.6.2002 for Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement in the Act, 1987. Under this Chapter, 'Section 22A' has been defined, which reads as under :

¶23

¶24

22A. Definitions – In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires, -

¶25

(a) “Permanent Lok Adalat” means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B

¶26

(b) “public utility service” means any -

¶27

(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or

¶28

(ii) postal , telegraph or telephone service; or

¶29

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or

¶30

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or

¶31

(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or

¶32

(vi) insurance service,

¶33

and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.

¶34

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petition is misconceived with regard to the subject matter as the application preferred under Section 22(4) of the Act, 1987, causing nuisance to any individual, cannot be made before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the scope of the definition cannot be enlarged to that extent. Hence, the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly dismissed the application and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶35

¶36

The petition being bereft of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law, if so advised.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

( Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Shyna

Bhajan Singh Gandhi v. Radwan @ Radheshyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhajan Singh Gandhi v. Radwan @ Radheshyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Mashih Vs Rajnald Petar and Anr.

Ramnarayan Patel Vs Ashwani Sahu

Smt. Birjha Bai Yadaw Vs Omprakash Kannauje

Smt. Kshiti Pradhan Vs Sanjay Pradhan

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh