The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Permanent Lok Adalat order. The court held that since the petitioner initiated adjudication proceedings and failed on merits, they cannot later complain about the absence of conciliation proceedings required under the Legal Services Authorities Act.
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.
CWP No.2235 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2235 of 2012
Date of decision: 13.2.2012
Janak Raj
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr.Parvez Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.2235 of 2012
2
without permission. According to the petitioner, he has got a sanctioned load of 82.94 KW whereas as per the report of the Senior XEN Enforcement, the load was of 109.33 KW. The petitioner filed an application dated 22.3.2011, Annexure P.2 under section 22-A (b) (iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short, “the Act”) before respondent No.2 praying for a direction to respondent No.1 to withdraw the memo dated 7.3.2011 and not to claim the amount of Rs.78,200/- on account of excessive load and for installing Generator Set without permission. Vide order dated 4.10.2011, Annexure P.3, the application was dismissed by respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, identical application No.11782 dated 22.3.2011 was allowed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P.4. Hence this petition.
CWP No.2235 of 2012
3
dismissed.
February 13, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the Permanent Lok Adalat order for want of conciliation proceedings when he initiated adjudication proceedings.
Whether compliance with Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act is mandatory when a consumer files for adjudication under Section 22A.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijay KumarDistinguished¶18
Reliance General Insurance Company limited v. Vijay Kumar and another, CWP No.20825 of 2010
Janak Raj
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
