HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7238/2020 Smt. Mohini Singh W/o Shri Raghuraj Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o House No. 16-17, Anirudhh Nagar, Bharatpur, (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur, Through Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Kumar Agrawal with Mr. Sonu Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Vijay Laxmi Jangid HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

19/01/2026

1. Challenge made in the present writ petition is to the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Bharatpur, vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable and was beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, particularly in view of the definition of “Public Utility Service” as provided under Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Sonu Kumar, submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat has grossly erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of non-maintainability, while ignoring the fact that the injury suffered by the petitioner due to a dog bite is nothing but a consequence of lack of proper conservancy and sanitation being maintained by the respondent–Nagar Nigam, and therefore, the complaint was rightly filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a bare perusal of the definition of “public utility service”, more particularly Section 22A(b)(iv) of the Act of 1987, which refers to “system of public conservancy or sanitation”, the loss suffered by the petitioner is solely on account of the inaction and reckless approach on the part of the respondents and thus, the Permanent Lok Adalat has the requisite authority and jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate the complaint filed by the petitioner.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25944/2018 titled Gram Panchayat Indrapura vs. Kajodmal & Ors. wherein the Court, while considering the issue of the death of the complainant therein on account of being attacked by a bull, upheld the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment dated 20.02.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.971/2024 titled as Municipal Corporation, Bikaner vs. Dhanna Ram & Ors., passed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, wherein, under similar circumstances, this Court held that an incident involving a citizen being injured by a stray bull would duly fall within the ambit of “Public Utility Services”. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“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.

…

14. This Court also takes note of the fact that the basic duty of the petitioner-Municipal Corporation to upkee