[2025:RJ-JP:26005] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17404/2024 HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Shri Manish Vashisth S/o Shri Hari Narayan Vashisth, Aged About 53 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Riya Jaiswani D/o Tarun Kumar Jaiswani, R/o 5-T-15, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Alankit Assignment Ltd., Regional Office- 201-203, K.j, City Tower, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Through Director/manager. 3. Alankit Assignment Ltd., Corporate Office 1-E/13, Alankit Heights, Ground Floor, Jhandewala Extension, New Delhi- 55, Through Director. 4. State Bank Of India, Branch B-315, Uday Marg, Rajapark Jaipur, Through Branch Manager. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Yadav For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the letter dated 31.12.2024 written by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur for compliance of the direction issued in para 21 of the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner-Bank has preferred this petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that because of a human error on the part of the officials working in the petitioner-bank, a cheque issued by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the [2025:RJ-JP:26005] (2 of 3) [CW-17404/2024] respondent No. 2 has been dishonored and subsequently, the aforesaid mistake was realized and rectified, however, even then a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 20(c) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and the same was allowed wherein a direction was issued to the petitioner-bank as well as the respondent No. 4 to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and in addition, to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest w.e.f. the date of filing of the application. Counsel submits that liberty was also granted to the petitioner Bank as well as the respondent No. 4 for taking a departmental action against the erring official. Counsel submits that in the aforesaid order, a direction was issued to the petitioner-Bank to pay 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- with interest and the petitioner- Bank has already complied with the aforesaid order and has already paid the sum of Rs. 10,529.18/- to the respondent- complainant by a demand draft No. 123449 dated 13.03.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner Bank has taken a decision not to take any action against its officials, as human error has occurred on their part but the Permanent Lok Adalat going beyond its jurisdiction has issued a letter to the Managing Director cum CEO of the petitioner bank for taking action against the erring officials. Counsel submits that the aforesaid direction cannot be issued, as the Permanant Lok Adalat cannot act as an Executive Officer of its own order. Counsel submits that no such direction can be issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat, however, a liberty was granted to the petitioner- Bank to do the needful action against [2025:RJ-JP:26005] (3 of 3) [CW-17404/2024] the erring Officials. The petitioner Bank has found that the aforesaid incident has occurred because of human error and there was no intention or negligence on their officials’ part, hence the letter dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat be quashed and set aside. 3. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner-Bank and looking to the fact that the compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat has already been done by the petitioner Bank to some extent and the petitioner Bank is not interested to take any action against their officials as there was no negligence on their part, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to look into the compliance of the direction issued in para 21 of the impugned order dated 01.08.2024. 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands allowed and the letter dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat stands quashed and set aside. 5. As no adverse order has been passed against the respondents/complainant, but even if the complainant feels aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he would be at liberty to revive this petition by way of filing a review application. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/12