ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.02.2021, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner deciding the petition under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1987’) filed by the petitioner.

2. In the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner had claimed following three reliefs:

“(i) The hospital allegedly being run by the respondent No. 5 Dr. Surendra Beniwal be ordered to be stopped.

(ii) The authorities be directed to construct wall to wall CC Road.

(iii) The respondents be bound down to carry out regular cleaning of the area.”

3. After considering the reply and hearing the rival counsel, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat disposed of the petition vide its order dated 02.02.2021, while observing that the regular cleaning of the area is being done and the relief claimed against non-applicant No. 5 (Doctor running the clinic) did not fall within the ambit of services defined in Section 22B of the Act of 1987.

4. This matter was listed yesterday, i.e. 17.11.2021, and after hearing learned counsel substantially, this Court had observed that prima-facie the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is just and if the petitioner felt advised, he could withdraw the writ petition and seek liberty to avail other remedies available to him. Pursuant to observation so made, Mr. Madhan, learned counsel sought a day's time to complete his instructions.

5. Today, Mr. Madhan, learned counsel at the outset submitted that the petitioner is a retired BSNL employee turned Advocate and he has instructed him to pursue the writ petition and obtain an order on merit, instead of withdrawing the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, proceeded to argue that as the respondent No. 5 is running a clinic/hospital, he falls within the definition of health services and thus, relief No. 1 can be given by the Permanent Lok Adalat and similarly second relief in relation to construction of wall to wall CC road is covered under “housing and real estate services” and thus the petition was competent for both the reliefs which have been refused by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

7. Heard.

8. Section 22A of the Act of 1987 runs as under:

“Section 22A. Definitions - In this chapter and for the purposes the sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Permanent Lok Adalat” means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B.

(b) “public utility service” means any:

(i) transport services for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water.

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service.

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment.

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation.

(v) service in hospital or dispensary.

(vi) insurance service.

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.”

9. Upon perusal of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner vis-a-vis the scope of services given under section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987, defining rather confining public utility services, including the amendment brought in section 22A (b) of the Act of 1987 (by the notification dated 16.02.2016), this Court is of the considered view that relief no. (i) and (ii) claimed by the petitioner clearly fall outside the scope of public utility services for which a petition can be maintained before Permanent Lok Adalat.

10. Petitioner's stance that a clinic or hospital being run by private respondent No. 5 can be ordered to be shifted by the Permanent Lok Adalat, as these services are covered under clause (v) of Section 22A (b) of the Act of 1987 is absolutely misconceived. A careful reading of clause (v) reveals that it uses expression in hospital or dispensary. This expression clearly postulates that if there is any deficiency or negligence in providing se