SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Raj) 1103

DINESH MEHTA
Sitaram Khatik – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Singh Khatik – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Deelip Singh
For the Respondent: Ashwin Babel, Sanjay Nahar, Sandeep Shah with Puneet Parihar

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

The captioned three writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 15.3.2019, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara, whereby it has disposed of the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 22-C of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1987).

2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, inter alia, raising various grievances in relation to the Swimming Pool, being managed by the petitioner-Sita Ram Khatik. It was also prayed that the Swimming Pool in question be permitted to be operated and managed by the District Sports Center in place of the private contractor-petitioner herein as he is not operating the Swimming Pool as required under the terms and contract and he is compromising public health and safety.

3. The Permanent Lok Adalat, however, disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant(s), inter alia, directing the District Collector/a Committee under him to take appropriate steps for termination of petitioner's contract for effective redressal of petitioner's grievance and/or made appropriate arrangement for smooth operatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top