Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Muzaffar Hussain Samma … on 1 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:16630]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17621/2024
1. State of Rajasthan, through Treasury Officer, office of
Treasury, Jalore.
2. District Collector, Jalore. ----Petitioners
Versus
Muzaffar Hussain Samma S/o Sulatan Khanji, aged about 75
Years, R/o Near New Bus Stand, Jalore, Tehsil and District Jalore
(Raj.). ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
Mr. Naresh Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
01/04/2025
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is with regard to
the impugned award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Permanent
Lok Adalat (PLA), Jalore in Case No.05/2023 where under the
claim of the respondent for reimbursement of medical bills which
was spent by the respondent in a private hospital for his
treatment was allowed and petitioners were directed to pay such
bills.
2. The facts disclose that the respondent is a retired employee
from the Transport department and after retirement, he obtained
treatment in the private hospital where the respondent spent a
sum of Rs.1,13,031/- and his grievance is that under the service
Rules in which he was appointed and retired, he is entitled to
claim of reimbursement of medical bills spent by him for his
treatment. When such request was made, it was not accepted. In
such circumstances, the respondent made present claim before
the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (herein after referred as ‘The Act‘).
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:47:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16630] (2 of 4) [CW-17621/2024]
3. The case of the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat
was that the respondent herein has made a claim for
reimbursement of medical bills without there being any bill
produced from the appropriate government hospital recognized by
the government. Since no bills by recognized government hospital
were produced, his claim for reimbursement was rejected.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to
deal with the dispute of present nature. According to him, the
dispute in the present case is not related to the public utility
services; therefore, the impugned award is without jurisdiction. He
further submits that the medical claim made before the petitioners
was without any medical bills of recognized hospital. Under such
circumstances, rejection was made and if respondent is aggrieved,
he could have taken statutory appeal, if any, and he has no right
to invoke jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim
was made before the petitioners by producing all the documents
showing the money spent by him for his treatment and the
petitioners without considering all the documents, wrongly
rejected the claim of the respondent. Under the said circumstance
the respondent moved a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
He further submits that the definition part of Section 22A of the
Act contains service relating to hospital which dispute is also
maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat; therefore, the
order impugned is passed by exercising the jurisdiction of the
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:47:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16630] (3 of 4) [CW-17621/2024]
Permanent Lok Adalat. He prays to dismiss the present writ
petition.
7. In light of the said submission, without entering into the
merits of the case, this Court is inclined to decide the issue,
whether the dispute of present nature will be maintainable before
the Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22B of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. For the purpose of
determining the above issue Section 22 and 22B reads as under: –
“22. Powers of [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok
Adalat.]–(1) The [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat]
shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under
this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following
matters, namely:–
(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
witness and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or
copy of such record or document from any court or office;
and
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers
contained in sub-section (1), every [Lok Adalat or
Permanent Lok Adalat] shall have the requisite powers
to specify its own procedure for the determination of any
dispute coming before it.
(3) All proceedings before a [Lok Adalat or Permanent
Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings
within the meaning of sections 193,219 and 228 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every [Lok Adalat or
Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be a Civil
Court for the purpose of section195 and Chapter XXVI of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in section19, the
Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State
Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok
Adalats at such places and for exercising such
jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility
services and for such areas as may be specified in the
notification.
(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area
notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of–
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:47:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16630] (4 of 4) [CW-17621/2024]
(a) a person who is, or has been, a district judge or
additional district judge or has held judicial office higher
in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman
of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and
(b) two other persons having adequate experience in
public utility service to be nominated by the Central
Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government on the recommendation of the Central
Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority,
appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may
be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok
Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the
appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred
to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.”
8. From the close reading of the above provisions, it is clear
that the Permanent Lok Adalat created under Section 22B of the
Act is having jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility
service. No doubt the public utility service includes hospital or
dispensary, wherein the Permanent Lok Adalat will have the
jurisdiction. In the present case, the petitioners are not rendering
any public utility service relating to the hospital. The dispute is
with regard to the reimbursement of hospital bills spent by the
respondent in a private hospital and his claim is based on service
rules under which he is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills.
The dispute in the present case is not in the nature of public utility
service; therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks inherent
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute of present nature. Thus, the
writ petition is liable to be allowed.
9. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Jalore is set aside. However, the respondent is at liberty to
avail appropriate remedy permitted under the law.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
264-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:47:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)