Dismissed

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. v. Ram Ratan

Rajasthan HC26 Feb 2019CW/2697/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Permanent Lok Adalat order awarding compensation. The Court held that refusal by one party to participate in conciliation does not oust the Lok Adalat's jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22-C if the matter affects a public utility service.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Vs Ram Ratan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2697/2019

¶3

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Through Assistant Engineer Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Bhadesar, TehsilBhadesar, District- Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶4

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Through Supretending Engineer Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ram Ratan S/o Bherulal Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, Occupation At Panchayat Guard Assistant Employee Resident Samari, District- Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶8

Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

26/02/2019

¶14

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittorgarh whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,28,500/- with interest has been directed to be paid to the injured who suffered 35% permanent disablement on account of 11000 KV electric wire falling on him.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, a claim application be entertained only where the applicant has first demanded for conciliation and the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to pass order and take cognizance unless the ingredients of Section

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-2697/2019]

¶18

22(C) of the Act are satisfied. It is his submission that the application under Section 22 of the Act is a pre-dispute litigation which falls under tort and is not touching the public utility service. 3. Heard learned counsel and perused the impugned order dated 28/11/2018. 4. In the case of Royal Living Homes Pvt. Limited & anr. Vs. Aseem Kumar Sharma & ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.16279/2018), decided on 11/09/2018, this Court, after discussing the various provisions of the Act and the law, held as under:-

¶19

“9. Thus viewed, it is only when the pleadings being completed with the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeds for conciliation, it is at that stage, therefore, with the consent of the parties, conciliation proceedings may be proceeded for.

¶20

As has been opined by the Apex Court in United Insurance Company Versus Ajay Sinha (supra) and by the High Court of Jharkhand in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arti Banerjee and Ors. (supra), the parties to the dispute may not agree for conciliation or may even refuse to participate in the conciliation proceedings.

¶21

On such refusal, or failure of conciliation, subsection 8 of Section 22-C would than come into operation and the Permanent Lok Adalat would than decide the case on negligence and adjudicate the dispute.

¶22

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that if one of the party has refused to participate in conciliation proceedings, the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat itself is ousted and the Permanent Lok Adalat is ought to be held having no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, is therefore, unsustainable in law.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-2697/2019]

¶25

No party can be stopped from moving an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The stage of conciliation is subsequent, the other party cannot wriggle out itself from the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat merely by saying that it does not want to participate in the conciliation proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, cannot be said to have been ousted. In view of this Court, no party can by its conduct oust the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The very purpose of Section 22-C would be rendered redundant if a view is taken that both parties consent has to be taken before proceeding to take cognizance under Section 22-C.

¶26

The only requirement in view of this Court, for taking cognizance by Permanent Lok Adalat are the two criterias, namely offence is compoundable or it is affecting public utility and secondly the valuation of dispute.”

¶27

Thus viewed, this Court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat had first attempted to get the dispute resolved through conciliation proceedings and in Para 5 of the order impugned, it has been mentioned that the conciliation proceedings could not be arrived at and hence, the order on merit has been passed. After the amendment made in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the public utility services also fall in their jurisdiction and the next contention of counsel for the petitioners is also without force.

¶28

Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶29

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶30

Raghu/

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. v. Ram Ratan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. v. Ram Ratan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khayali Lal Tater Vs Pawan Devi, Deven Bafna @ Pawan Jain

Baburam Vs State of Rajasthan

O L Vs Ravindra Kumar Saxena

B.B.G.B.D. Pvt. Vs State and Ors.

M/S. K.K. Enterprises,K.G. Gattani Vs State and Ors.

Lalita Vs State of Rajasthan