1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (229)

CWP-9916-2022 Date of decision:- 22.09.2025 BALI RAM ALIAS OSHIHAR ... PETITIONER VERSUS PERMANENT LOK ADALAT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL

1. Petitioner has approached this Court assailing award dated 08.10.2021, Annexre P-3, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Panchkula (for short “the Lok Adalat”) whereby he has been saddled with the liability of payment of Rs.3,50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/-

to the private respondent.

2. Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a contractor and by an agreement dated 30.01.2019, Annexure P-1, he entered into a contract with respondent No.2 for construction of a house on a plot in Panch Ram Colony, Raipur Rani. She asserts that petitioner took up the construction work. Payment of Rs.3,70,000/- become due after the part completion of the house but the private respondent did not make the entire

2-

payment and petitioner was unable to carry out the remaining construction. She submits that although, the agreement contains an arbitration clause, the priave respondent filed an application, Annexure P-2 under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (for short “the Act of 1987”) before the Lok Adalat. Counsel points out that after receiving the notices, petitioner appeared before the Lok Adalat on 27.01.2020 but could not put in appearance thereafter due to the outbreak of pandemic. She further submits that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and impugned award, Annexure P-3, was passed against the petitioner. Besides other arguments, she has contended that the construction work does not fall within the definition of “Public Utility Service” under Section 22-A of the Act of 1987 and therefore, the Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to decide the application.

3. Per contra counsel for private respondent has supported the impugned award and urges that the petitioner abandoned the work. He submits that the petitioner went to his village in April, 2019 and did not continue with the construction work thereafter. It is also his argument that the part construction completed by the petitioner was defective, which had to be repaired by incurring expenses. Counsel states that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the petitioner in advance which have been embezzled by him. He asserts that the remaining work had to be completed by engaging another contractor and private respondent had to incur extra expenditure for which he is liable to be compensated.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and their respective submissions have been considered.

5. Permanent Lok Adalats have been established under Section 22-B of the

3-

Act of 1987 for exercising jurisdiction in respect of Public Utility Services for such areas as might be prescribed in the notification issued by the Government. “Public Utility Services” have been defined under Section 22-A(b) of the said Act and mean as under:-

“(i) transport services for the carriage of passengers or goods by rail, road or water; or (ii) postal, telegraph or telephone services; or (iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment;

or (iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or (v) services in hospital or dispensary; or (vi) insurance service;”

6. By virtue of notification issued on 16.05.2016, Ministry of Law and Justice have included “education or educational services” and “housing and real estate” under the definition of Permanent Lok Adalat. However, construction of a house has not been introduced in the definition of Public Utility Service. Moreover, the construction work of the house had been carried out by a private party, which in any case cannot fall within the ambit of “Public Utility Service