Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1871 (RAJ)

Sitaram Khatik v. Surendra Singh Khatik

2019-07-02

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The captioned three writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 15.3.2019, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara, whereby it has disposed of the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 22-C of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1987). 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, inter alia, raising various grievances in relation to the Swimming Pool, being managed by the petitioner-Sita Ram Khatik. It was also prayed that the Swimming Pool in question be permitted to be operated and managed by the District Sports Center in place of the private contractor-petitioner herein as he is not operating the Swimming Pool as required under the terms and contract and he is compromising public health and safety. 3. The Permanent Lok Adalat, however, disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant(s), inter alia, directing the District Collector/a Committee under him to take appropriate steps for termination of petitioner's contract for effective redressal of petitioner's grievance and/or made appropriate arrangement for smooth operation of the Swimming Pool in question. It will be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned order, with a view to examine the issue raised before this Court: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the order impugned passed in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara is per se illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the grievance sought to be raised by the complainant do not come within the sweep of the services mentioned in Section 22A(b)(i) to (vi) of the Act of 1987. Advancing his arguments further, he submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat assumes the jurisdiction to try the suit only in relation to the matters enumerated in Clause (i) to (vi) of Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987 and the contract or service in question or even the services of Swimming Pool do not fall in such category by any stretch of imagination. 5. Having raised the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned award of the Lok Adalat be quashed and set aside. 6. 5. Having raised the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned award of the Lok Adalat be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-the complainants argued that the issue of jurisdiction, which petitioner is seeking to raise here had not been raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat and as such, the petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, is estopped from raising such pleas on the principles of acquiescence. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant further submitted that the Lok Adalat has passed an innocuous order and simply directed the District Collector, Bhilwara to ensure that the Swimming Pool at Bhilwara is operated in a manner conducive to the health and interest of the children and residents of the area, he further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, so as to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court and the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to enter into the arena of the complaint filed or the grievance raised by the complainants. Permanent Lok Adalat assumes the jurisdiction only in relation to the matters enumerated in sub-clause (i) to (vi) of Clause (b) of Section 22A of the Act of 1987. The grievance raised by the complainants may fall in the ambit of deficiency in service, but such services cannot be termed as public utility services by any stretch of imagination. In case the services or the issue do not fall within the precincts of the services enlisted in the provisions of the Act of 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate the matter or issue any direction, pursuant to suit so filed by the complainant. 9. As far as the argument of Mr. Babel that the petitioner has not raised the issue of jurisdiction before the Permanent Lok Adalat, suffice it to say that the matter at hand is a simple case of exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in the Permanent Lok Adalat and in case when the proceedings are fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, the principle of acquiescence does not apply. 10. 10. This being the position, even if the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, may be innocuous, it cannot be countenanced and sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order/judgment dated 15.3.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara are quashed and set aside. The stay application are also disposed of accordingly.