Advocates:
['Shakti Suman Kumar', '', 'Rajesh Ranjan', 'Ajatshatru']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1689 of 2019

======================================================

M/s Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Ltd. through its authorized

signatory Sanjay Kumar Son of S.C. Mishra a Company incorporated under

the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered offices at 37-2, Plot

No.332, Mani Mansion, Defence Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad and

Circle Office at 4th Floor, Korara Enclave, Near Sai Corporate, Bailey Road,

Patna (Bihar), Resident of 203, Majestic Hermitage, Near Alpna Market, New

Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Patliputra, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Ajay Kumar, Son of Late Ram Bharosa Singh Resident of East Chitrakut

Nagar, Road No.12, P.O.- Digha, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna

2.

The Executive Officer, Danapur Nizamat Nagar Parishad, Danapur, District-

Patna

3.

Narendra Kumar S/o Late Ganga Dayal Singh Mohallah- East Chitrakut

Nagar, Road No.-12, P.O.- Digha, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. Atul Shankar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Ajatshatru

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 08-09-2022

The present writ petition has been filed for

setting aside the order dated 3.12.2018, passed by

the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna in P.L.A.

Case No. 8/2018 whereby and whereunder the

Respondent No. 2 has been directed to

Patna High Court CWJC No.1689 of 2019 dt.08-09-2022

2/6

remove the mobile tower installed on the house of

the Respondent No. 3.

The short issue raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that firstly, the

petitioner was not made a party to the said P.L.A.

Case No. 8/2018, instituted at the instance of the

Respondent no. 1 and secondly, the dispute in

question does not fall within the purview of Section

22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

(hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1987”).

Another aspect of the matter, as argued by

the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that since the

petitioner was not made a party before the learned

Court of Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, there was

no occasion for conduct of any conciliation

proceedings, in between the parties, as such, on

this ground as well, the order passed by the

Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, dated 3.12.2018 is

perverse and fit to be set aside. At this juncture, it

would be relevant to refer to Section 22A of the

Act, 1987, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“22A. Definitions.—In this Chapter and

Patna High Court CWJC No.1689 of 2019 dt.08-09-2022

3/6

for the purposes of section 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 service for the

carriage of passengers or goods

by air, road or water; or

(ii)

postal,

telegraph

or

telephone service; or

(iii) supply of power, light or

water to the public by any

establishment; or

(iv)

system

of

public

conservancy or sanitation; or

(v)

service in hospital or

dispensary; or

(vi) insurance service,

and 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.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.1689 of 2019 dt.08-09-2022

4/6

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

also referred to a judgment, rendered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs.

G.S. Jayarama, reported in (2022) 7SCC 776, to

contend that first of all, though the Permanent Lok

Adalats are vested with adjudicatory functions

under the Act, 1987, but the disput