A writ petition by a bank challenged a Permanent Lok Adalat letter directing action against erring officials for a cheque dishonoured due to human error. The High Court held the Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to monitor compliance beyond its order and quashed the letter.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:26005]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17404/2024
HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Shri Manish Vashisth S/o Shri Hari Narayan Vashisth, Aged About 53 Years.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Yadav For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
14/07/2025
(2 of 3)
[2025:RJ-JP:26005]
[CW-17404/2024]
respondent No. 2 has been dishonored and subsequently, the aforesaid mistake was realized and rectified, however, even then a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 20(c) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and the same was allowed wherein a direction was issued to the petitioner-bank as well as the respondent No. 4 to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and in addition, to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest w.e.f. the date of filing of the application. Counsel submits that liberty was also granted to the petitioner Bank as well as the respondent No. 4 for taking a departmental action against the erring official. Counsel submits that in the aforesaid order, a direction was issued to the petitioner-Bank to pay 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- with interest and the petitionerBank has already complied with the aforesaid order and has already paid the sum of Rs. 10,529.18/- to the respondentcomplainant by a demand draft No. 123449 dated 13.03.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner Bank has taken a decision not to take any action against its officials, as human error has occurred on their part but the Permanent Lok Adalat going beyond its jurisdiction has issued a letter to the Managing Director cum CEO of the petitioner bank for taking action against the erring officials. Counsel submits that the aforesaid direction cannot be issued, as the Permanant Lok Adalat cannot act as an Executive Officer of its own order. Counsel submits that no such direction can be issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat, however, a liberty was granted to the petitioner- Bank to do the needful action against
[2025:RJ-JP:26005]
[CW-17404/2024]
(3 of 3)
the erring Officials. The petitioner Bank has found that the aforesaid incident has occurred because of human error and there was no intention or negligence on their officials’ part, hence the letter dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat be quashed and set aside.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to issue a letter directing disciplinary action against bank officials after granting liberty to the bank itself.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
Riya Jaiswani
Alankit Assignment Ltd., Regional Office, Jaipur
Alankit Assignment Ltd., Corporate Office, New Delhi
State Bank Of India, Branch Uday Marg, Rajapark Jaipur
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
