I <3?!..^..^.«;- ^....-—y^" f.?,.^....----^':Y^y^^.{...L. ^—S^&S£^-- HUN V ^li^U.^"^-- r'..1^-"^ ^....".—-"—-•- c^ f^/L IN THE HON'BIE HIGH COURT OF ^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Writ Petition (C) No. 15~ 2 2- Qf2008. ^ PETITIONER •* Manish Agrawal, son of Shri Mahesh Chandra Gupta, aged 29 years, resident ofMungeli Naka, Bilaspur, Post, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS Vs RESPONDENTS :- "1. Smt. Sunita Bai, wife ofRamayan Surya- wanshi, son ofRamdulare Suryawanshi, aged 21 years, resident ofVillage Bodri, Near School, Post Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), ->?'^ fc^" x'^ Pubiic Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Through it's President, Civil Court Premises, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), '^3. State Legal Services Authority, Through -; Secretary, State Legal Services Authority office, Ware House Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "• --„, XI.HC-22 @^ '• 3iI^I'?iI W\<t 3nt?i ^?qR?'gf5d y:. x 'svi ^rpncPi, Wte're, (««ni*)y fllWff tbT-IT^i ..Ut(0..ko.=.l^ sn^TWiwgfta '*wi!'i'lil-< ^wvti ^ 'fozt <Rii<rii< ^arfigtTSTI^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava..3*, 03-01-2011 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senjor Advocate along wfth Shrf J.K.Qupta, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admlssion. This petition is directed Authority Act, 1987 has been agalnst order dat«l by which petitioner's application under ^ection 22 (c) (8) of the Legat Services tejected by Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur. Learned counsel for th|e petitioner argued that the prtitioner moved an application for dra|wing compromise proceedings but the same has been dismissed b^ forum does not have jurisdictiq to the jurisdiction of Lok Adalatjwhlch are organized at the district tevet. The application admitte^ily was moved before the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat which enumerated in Section 22 (b). the Court below by recording that the n under the law and the matter pertains has been conferred jurtsdiction under Section 22 (b) of the Act, 198|7 to deal with matters specified therein. The nature of dispute wlth reg^rd to which the appllcation was moved by the applicant, on the face of It, does not fall within any of the clause Leamed counsel tor the petitioner could not point out any other notlfica|tion so as to bring the subject matter of the case within the jurisdiction |of Public Utility Pennanent Lok Adaiat. 1 therefore, do not flnd any illega(ity in the order. [v% ^' XI-HC-22 ?5[ -111-41trl-4, ^dly'ld, fawiyy uu sn^rqiT R-li-* 3T|^I ?b^ ^f?a Deepfi x WR-wwqrai l0f(c)i^o. •0'fc 3II^?I WIW 'S^ _o)- Leamed counsei for the p^tittoner sought liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings. The impugn«lorder itself take recourse to Lok Adaiats cohstituted petitioner wouid be at liberty to | available to him under the law. ^i^-'^'i ^r\v\\ ^^^ <r^i^.!< ^T sipgir snt?! The sleariy recofds that the petltloner may under the Act of 1987. The take recourse to such remedy as is petltlon is dismissed. Sd/- f iManindra Mohan Shrivastavaj Judge I [ift^^q