Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Municipal Corporation vs Dhanna Ram (2024:Rj-Jd:8712) on 20 February, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 971/2024
1. Municipal Corporation, Bikaner through its Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Bikaner.
2. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dhanna Ram S/o Dala Ram, By Caste Sikligar (Luhar),
R/o Near Dr. Preeti Kalla Hospital, Gajner Road, Bikaner
(Raj.).
2. Khajuram S/o Dhanna Ram, By Caste Sikligar (Luhar),
R/o Near Dr. Preeti Kalla Hospital, Gajner Road, Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. Ramdev S/o Dhanna Ram, By Caste Sikligar (Luhar),
R/o Near Dr. Preeti Kalla Hospital, Gajner Road, Bikaner
(Raj.).
4. Chainsukh S/o Dhanna Ram, By Caste Sikligar (Luhar),
R/o Near Dr. Preeti Kalla Hospital, Gajner Road, Bikaner
(Raj.).
5. Indu D/o Dhanna Ram, By Caste Sikligar (Luhar), R/o
Near Dr. Preeti Kalla Hospital, Gajner Road, Bikaner
(Raj.).
6. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner Through Its
Chairman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Ladrecha
Mr. Devendra Singh Pidiyar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
REPORTABLE
20/02/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner,
whereby, a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only)
has been awarded in favour of the private respondent Nos.1 to 5.
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
3. Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that on
06.08.2019, while Smt. Santosh Devi (wife of respondent No.1
and mother of respondent Nos.2 to 5) was going on the Gajner
road in Bikaner, she was hit by a stray bull. On account of the
injuries suffered, Smt. Santosh Devi was taken to the Kothari
Hospital from where she was referred to P.B.M Hospital, Bikaner.
At P.B.M. Hospital Bikaner, Smt. Santosh Devi succumbed to the
injuries suffered by her and a death certificate to that effect was
issued by Municipal Corporation, Bikaner on 21.08.2019. In these
circumstances, the private respondents preferred an application
under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1987') before the Permanent
Lok Adalat, Bikaner for grant of compensation for the death of
Smt. Santosh Devi who was hit by a stray Bull on the Gajner
Road, Bikaner. The Permanent Lok Adalat, vide its judgment and
award dated 02.08.2023, ordered the petitioner-Municipal
Corporation, Bikaner to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in
favour of the private respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 02.08.2023, the present writ petition has been filed
by the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Corporation,
Bikaner vehemently submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat had
no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the services rendered by
the petitioner does not fall in the category of 'public utility service'
as mentioned in Section 22-A (b) of the Act of 1987 and,
therefore, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, while passing the
judgment and award dated 02.08.2023, exceeded its jurisdiction.
Learned counsel further submits that the objection with respect to
the jurisdiction was also taken by the petitioners before the
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
Permanent Lok Adalat, however, the same was not properly dealt
with by the Permanent Lok Adalat and therefore, the Permanent
Lok Adalat committed an error while passing the judgment and
award dated 02.08.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-Municipal Corporation is not under an obligation to
prevent the movement of stray animals on the streets, however,
he fairly submits that the Cow and Bull involved in the incident
were stray animals roaming on the road of the petitioner-Municipal
Corporation, Bikaner. Learned counsel also submits that the order
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner is not in conformity
with the provisions of law and, therefore, the same may be
quashed and set-aside and the respondents may be directed to
avail appropriate remedy available under the law.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case including the
impugned judgment and award dated 02.08.2023.
7. To appreciate the controversy in correct perspective, clause
(b) of Section 22-A of the Act of 1987 is reproduced hereinbelow:
Section 22A (b):-"public utility service" means
any-
(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers
or goods by air, road or water; or
(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or
(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by
any establishment; or
(iv) system of public conservancy or
sanitation; or
(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or
(vi)insurance service,
and includes any service which the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case
may be, may, in the public interest, by notification,
declare to be a public utility service for the
purposes of this Chapter"
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
8. In the present case, as per sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of
Section 22-A of the Act of 1987 i.e. system of public conservancy
or sanitation, the petitioner-Municipal Corporation, Bikaner is
under an obligation to provide the same to the utmost satisfaction
of the public. Since, the petitioner has failed to provide proper
conservancy and sanitation, the stray animals are seen on roads
as they get the eatables and garbage lying on the
roads/pavements which they consume. Since, in the present case,
the petitioner has failed to keep the stray bulls and cows off the
road, it has resulted into a number of accidents taking place
everywhere including the one in hand at Bikaner.
9. In the present case, since it is factually not disputed that the
incident had taken place on account of a stray Bull and Cow hitting
Smt. Santosh Devi who succumbed to the injuries suffered by her,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner-Municipal Corporation,
Bikaner has failed to render its services and duties as mandated
by law and expected of them.
10. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner has taken note of
the reply filed by the respondents (petitioners herein) and
thereafter on 16.05.2023 a proposal given by the petitioners
(private respondents herein) was submitted to the respondents
(petitioners herein), however, the same was rejected by them and
it was taken note of by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order
sheet dated 06.06.2023. In these circumstances the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat taking recourse to the provisions of sub-
section 7 and 8 of Section 22-C decided the application preferred
by the private respondents. Section 22-C of the Act of 1987
speaks about the cognizance of the cases of Permanent Lok
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
Adalat. For brevity, sub-section 5, 6, 7, & 8 of Section 22-C are
reproduced as under:
"(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct
of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4),
assist the parties in their attempt to reach an
amicable settlement of the dispute in an
independent and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the
application to cooperate in good faith with the
Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute
relating to the application and to comply with the
direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce
evidence and other related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid
conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there
exist elements of settlement in such proceedings
which may be acceptable to the parties, it may
formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the
dispute and give to the parties concerned for their
observations and in case the parties reach at an
agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they
shall sign the settlement agreement and the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms
thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of
the parties concerned.
(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement
under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat
shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence,
decide the dispute."
11. A bare perusal of sub-section 5 to 8 of Section 22C makes it
clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat during the conduct of
conciliation proceedings shall make endeavor to arrive at a
settlement in such proceedings and if the settlement is not arrived
at, then recourse to sub-section 8 shall be taken and the matter
will be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat (if the dispute does
not relate to any offence).
12. The Permanent Lok Adalat has taken all steps for fruitful
conciliation of the matter and since the settlement could not be
arrived at, the recourse to sub-clause (8) of
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 has been resorted to. This Court is
of the view that since the petitioners have failed to discharge their
duties for removal of the garbage and eatables from the streets
resulting into the stray animals wandering on the streets, the
Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction in the wake of Section
22A (b) (iv) of the Act of 1987 to deal with the matter and has
correctly adjudicated the application preferred by the private
respondents.
13. In this view of the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat has
rightly taken into consideration the purport of Section 22-C of the
Act of 1987 and has correctly decided the matter.
14. This Court also takes note of the fact that the basic duty of
the petitioner-Municipal Corporation to upkeep the system of
public conservancy and sanitation is not being performed properly
giving rise to the fact that stray animals are seen in every nook
and corner of the cities creating havoc on the passer-by resulting
into incidents taking place on daily basis. It is high time when a
recourse, as has been taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is
resorted to by awarding compensation to the persons who have
suffered injuries and deaths in such cases. The stringent action of
fastening the liability on the Municipal Corporation to pay the
compensation in such cases will be helpful in preventing such
accidents in future and will force the officials to discharge their
duties sincerely and faithfully.
15. In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at
Jaipur had also rejected the writ petition bearing No.25944/2018
(Gram Panchayat Indrapura Vs. Kajodmal & Ors.) arising out of
the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated
30.11.2018.
[2024:RJ-JD:8712]
16. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in
the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat awarding
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) as compensation vide its
judgment and award dated 02.08.2023. The petitioner may
recover the compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat
from the persons/officers who were negligent and have failed to
perform their duties as mandated in law for preservation and
maintenance of public conservancy or sanitation.
17. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
39-ArunPandey/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
