Divisional Manager vs Shri Rajendra Prasad Budhia Son Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 618 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                    W.P.(C) No. 5895 of 2005

                 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                 Divisional Office at laljee Heerjee Road, Main Road, Ranchi
                                                  ...      ...     (O.P. No.2)/Petitioner
                                            Versus
                 1. Shri Rajendra Prasad Budhia son of late Atma Ram Budhia,
                    resident of Atma Ram Bhawan, Lane, Main Road, Ranchi
                                                  ...      ... (O.P. No.1)/Respondents
                 2. Sripad Mahto son of late Visheswar Mahto
                 3. Radhika Devi wife of Sripad Mahto, both resident of village
                    Ghagra, PS- Silli, District- Ranchi (Parents of the deceased)
                                            ...        ...       (Applicants)/Respondents
                                            ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

06/06.02.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the private respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For quashing of the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 15 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the learned court below has decreed the claim of the claimants/respondents, without considering the basic norms of Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Case under the Motor Vehicles Act AND further the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ or writs in the nature of Certiorari to restrain the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the claim of the claimants on merit under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, when the petitioner is not agreeable to settle the disputes through mutual agreement and settlement AND further the petitioner prays that during the pendency of this writ application, the operation of the judgment impugned be stayed and declare that the provisions as contained u/s -22(c)(7), 22

(c)(8), 22(D) and 22(E) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended are ultravires and bad in law."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions in the present case. He submits that since he has no instructions in the present case, he is not in a position to argue this case.

5. Since the petitioner is not ready to argue the present case in absence of instructions, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

7. Pending I.A , if any, is closed.

8. Let this order be communicated to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, through FAX/e-mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj