HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7356/2019

Hariram Choudhary S/o Late Sh. Bhauram Choudhary, Aged

About 72 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Jodhpur Tikhana -

Devchhaya 122-B, Sector-B, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Seema W/o Sh. Dinesh Choudhary, Resident Of B-122,

Devchhaya, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur.

2.

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Through Managing

Director, Address- New Power House, Jodhpur.

3.

Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited,

B-3, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. AA Bhansali

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. SD Purohit

Mr. Pradeep Sharma

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment / Order

29/05/2019

The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming following

relief:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ

petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ,

order or direction the impugned award dated 14.5.2019

Annex. 1 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur

Metropolitan in Public Utilities Services Case No. 134/2019,

may kindly be declared illegal and be according quashed and

set aside. “

The petitioner has assailed the impugned award dated

14.5.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Public Utilities

Services Case No. 134/2019 whereby application under Section

(2 of 2)

[CW-7356/2019]

22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 filed by the

respondent No. 2 is allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of

the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner are real brothers and the

suit is pending before the learned court below regarding

adjudication of the property rights in question. He further submits

that the Permanent Lok Adalat without impleading the petitioner

as party has passed an adverse order to the extent of observing

the possession of the respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

Permanent Lok Adalat had made a limited observations regarding

grant of electricity connection.

Learned counsel for the Electricity Department submits that

the department is bound by the award.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of

the opinion that the limited intervention made by the Parmanent

Lok Adalat for grant of electricity connection need not to be

interfered by this court at this stage. However, we make it clear

that the grant of electricity connection by no way shall be read in

favour of the respondent No. 1 so as to prove her possession or

any right over the property. We further make it clear that grant

of such electricity connection in light of the order dated 14.5.2019

shall not create any right whatsoever in favour of the respondent

No. 1.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

ns. 201-1/-