Allowed

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited v. Bhagwandeen

Chhattisgarh HC12 Aug 2024WP227/32/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coal company challenged a Permanent Lok Adalat order dismissing its objection that the Adalat lacked jurisdiction over a land oustee's compensation/employment grievance and execution application. Court held such disputes fall outside Section 22A's public utility services and the Adalat cannot execute civil court decrees; set aside the impugned order, allowed the writ and quashed the execution proc

What did the court decide?

Impugned Lok Adalat order set aside; execution proceedings quashed; respondent free to seek remedies under law.

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited Vs… — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:30563

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 32 of 2023

¶6

1. General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Vishrampur Area, Vishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2- Sub Area Manager SECL- Kumda Sub Area, Kumda Colliery District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

Bhagwandeen S/o Late Ram Singh Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Dawana, Patrapali, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶10

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

13/08/2024

¶15

Digitally signed SHYNA by SHYNA AJAY Date: AJAY 2024.08.1414:43:50 +0530

¶16

This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.7.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambikapur, District Sarguja, in Case No.16/2022,

¶17

2 / 5

¶18

whereby, the objection raised by the petitioners that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the issue with regard to redressal of grievance of a land oustee for payment of compensation and employment under Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short “the Act, 1987”), was dismissed.

¶19

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the compensation has already been paid by the Award dated 30.5.1998 and at Sl. No.60, the name of the respondent has been mentioned. He further submits that earlier, Civil Suit No.147-A/2009 was filed, wherein, the judgment dated 13.12.2010, has been passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Surajpur, by which, the appointment order issued in favour of Etwari Mandal was declared illegal and the respondent was found eligible to get benefit of the said acquisition of the land in order to obtain appointment from the Petitioner Organization. He submits that the respondent preferred an application for execution of the said judgment/decree before the Permanent Lok Adalat, wherein, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the said application as the cognizance is dehors the jurisdiction. Ultimately, by way of the impugned order, the concerned Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and a cost of Rs.5000/- was also imposed on them. Hence, this petition.

¶20

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent would

¶21

3 / 5

¶22

support the impugned order and submit that the same is just and proper, which does not require any interference by this Court.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

¶24

Chapter VIA was inserted by Act 37 of 2002 w.e.f. 11.6.2002, wherein, Section 22A of the Act 1987 deals with expeditious disposal of cases relating to the public utility service, which reads as under :

¶25

Section 22A. Definitions.

¶26

In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,—

¶27

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

¶28

(b) "public utility service" means any—

¶29

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

¶30

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or

¶33

(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or

¶34

(vi) insurance service,

¶35

and includes any service which the Central Government or

¶36

the State Government, as the case may be, in the public

¶37

4 / 5

¶38

interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.

¶39

In pursuance of clause (b) of section 22A of the Act, 1987, the Central Government in the public interest declared the following services to be public utility services with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the OfÏcial Gazette, namely :-

¶40

(a) education and educational institutions; or

¶41

(b) housing and real estate service.”

¶42

On perusal of the entire provisions of Section 22A in the preceding para, on the ground of which, a cognizance can be taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Act, 1987, it is quite explicit that the dispute which has been referred by the respondent is not covered thereunder . When the Legislature has not given any power for taking cognizance, the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service) had no authority to take cognizance of such issue dehors the law. Furthermore, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction for execution of the decree passed by the Civil Court. I, therefore, hold that the cognizance taken by the concerned Authority (Permanent Lok Adalat {Public Utility Services} ) is bad in law.

¶43

For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be and is hereby setaside.

¶44

5 / 5

¶45

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat initiated by the respondent by filing an application for execution is hereby quashed. However, the respondent would be at liberty to seek remedy available to him under the law, if so advised.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶48

Judge

¶49

Shyna

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited v. Bhagwandeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited v. Bhagwandeen

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

Smt. Meena Agrawal Vs H. D. B. Financial Service Limited

Surendra Aayam Vs Magma Fincorp Ltd.

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ld, Vs M/S Rajpootana Chables and Conductors Vt. Ltd.

Fulbasiya @ Birajobai Vs Sunita

Smt. Lalit Vs Ramgovind

Smt. Yashodhara Goswami Vs Manoj Pingua