Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Ltd., Jodhpur &An vs Vijay Kumar & Anr on 19 August, 2009
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7644/2009
Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & another
Vs.
Vijay Kumar and another
Date of Order :: 19th August 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Sumeet Mehta, for the petitioners.
....
BY THE COURT:
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to entertain this writ petition filed only on 29.06.2009 against the interim order as made by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sriganganagar on 12.12.2008.
The respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('the Act') complaining of harassment by the concerned Assistant Engineer of the petitioner-Corporation in the name of checking of the meter; of having been subjected to illegal demand; and of having been coerced to make payment of an amount of Rs.70,100/-. It appears that the respondent No.1 also made a prayer before the Permanent Lok Adalat for interim relief with the submissions that his electricity supply was intended to be disconnected in the name of vigilance checking report dated 22.09.2008; and the non-applicant department (the 2 petitioner) deserves to be restrained from disconnecting such supply.
By the impugned order dated 12.12.2008, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sriganganagar, while issuing notices, ordered that the electricity supply connection of the applicant shall not be disconnected for non-payment of the bills issued pursuant to the questioned vigilance checking report dated 22.09.2008.
The petitioners have averred that appearance has been put before the said Permanent Lok Adalat and a reply has been filed refuting the contentions of the applicant; and preliminary objections have been raised against maintainability of the application under Section 22-C of the Act and against the interim order. According to the petitioners, as the present case relates to non-compoundable offence for being a matter pertaining to the theft of electricity committed second time by the consumer and FIR having been lodged, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction; and then, there is no provision for passing any interim order at the time of issuance of notice under Section 22-C of the Act.
With reference to such objections, the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 12.12.2008 and with the prayer that the application filed by the respondent No.1 before the Permanent 3 Lok Adalat may be dismissed.
This Court is unable to find any reason that the petitioners, though having filed their reply and objections before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 16.01.2009, without waiting for specific decision of the said Permanent Lok Adalat on such objections, have chosen to file this writ petition about five months later, only on 29.06.2009. During the course of submissions, the counsel for the petitioners would not dispute the position that the matter still remains pending for consideration of Permanent Lok Adalat. Looking to the nature of the case and the submissions as made, it does not appear appropriate to take up parallel proceedings in this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to argue that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief but such an argument does not merit acceptance particularly when examined in the light of the provisions of Section 22-C and 22-D of the Act. Per Section 22-D, the Permanent Lok Adalat, while conducting conciliation proceedings and deciding the dispute on merits, is to be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity, and other principles of justice. Viewed in the light of these provisions and the provisions of Section 22-C of the Act whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has the power to decide the matter finally, if the said Adalat has found the case, in the 4 given circumstances, fit for grant of interim relief, hardly a case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and others: (2008) 2 SCC 660. The said decision essentially dealing with the jurisdiction, powers and function of the Lok Adalats per Section 19 to 22 of the Act, has no direct application in the present matter and to the procedure and powers of Permanent Lok Adalat per Section 22-C and Section 22-D of the Act. In any event, the facts herein do not make out a case worth interference in the writ jurisdiction particularly when this writ petition itself has been filed only in the month of June 2009; and in view of the fact that the petitioners have otherwise all the opportunities available to make their submissions before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Exercise of writ jurisdiction in the present matter is refused; and the writ petition is rejected.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the case either way.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
MK