[2026:RJ-JP:2251] (1 of 6) [CW-7238/2020] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2251] (2 of 6) [CW-7238/2020] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2251] (3 of 6) [CW-7238/2020] 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 upkeep the system of public conservancy and sanitation is not being performed properly giving rise to the fact that stray animals are seen in every nook and corner of the cities creating havoc on the passer-by resulting into incidents taking place on daily basis. It is high time when are course, as has been taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat, is resorted to by awarding compensation to the persons who have suffered injuries and deaths in such cases. The stringent action of fastening the liability on the Municipal Corporation to pay the compensation in such cases will be helpful in preventing such accidents in future and will force the officials to discharge their duties sincerely and faithfully.” [2026:RJ-JP:2251] (4 of 6) [CW-7238/2020] 6. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the act alleged in the complaint, viz. the dog bite suffered by the petitioner, under no circumstances, falls within the definition of “Public Utility Services” as provided under the Act of 1987. In absence of the same, the provisions of the Act of 1987 would not be applicable, and therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat was justified in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner on account of lack of jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in F.A No.162 of 2017 titled as Rajinder Singh Ajmani vs. Fulkunwar & Ors. dated 24.06.2021. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 reveals that the complaint filed by the petitioner was rejected at the very outset solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the account of the subject matter of the complaint being claim for compensation arising from a dog bite which does not fall within the definition of “Public Utility Service”. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a finding is unsustainable, as is evident from a plain reading of Section 22A(b)(iv) and guidance from the judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Indrapura (supra) and Municipal Corporation, Bikaner (supra), wherein, while dealing with similar circumstances, it has been held that an incident relating to injury caused by a stray animal, would indeed fall within the category of a system of public conservancy. [2026:RJ-JP:2251] (5 of 6) [CW-7238/2020] Further, the judgment relied upon by the respondent does not render any assistance to it, as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BP Moideen Sevamandir & Anr. vs. A M Kutty Hassan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 198, referred in the case of Rajinder Singh Ajmani (supra) dealt with the powers and authority of Lok Adalat, whereas the present matter pertains to an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Furthermore, the said judgment of Rajinder Singh Ajmani (supra) in paragraph 11 unequivocally holds that the Permanent Lok Adalat has the power to decide cases on their merits. The said paragraph reads as under:- “11. It is thus evident that the object of the enactment of the Act of 1987 is for resolving the dispute alternatively on the basis of conciliation outside the Court, though the permanent Lok Adalat has the power to decide the cases on merit, but such decision is at pre-litigation stage only and if the parties do not arrive at a compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the Court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy as provided under the law.” 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 is set aside and the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bharatpur, is directed to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner on its merits and without being influenced by its’ earlier order dated 04.03.2020. 12. Considering that the complaint pertains to the year 2020, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bharatpur, is expected to decide the same [2026:RJ-JP:2251] (6 of 6) [CW-7238/2020] expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /32