1 CGHC010376522026 2026:CGHC:43288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1290 of 2026 Bilaspur Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Bilaspur Nagrik Sahkaruiu Bank Limited, Office - Near Brihaspati Bazar, District - Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Purnima Pandey W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Aged About 53 Years R/o Lakshmi Chowk, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Smt. Kalpana Dubey, W/o Late Shri Mahendra Dubey, Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Brihaspati Bazar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Anish Pandey, S/o Ashok Pandey, Aged About 37 Years R/o Lakshmi Chowk, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 06/10/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned award dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.10.12 11:43:33 +0530 2 Bilaspur in Case No. 25/2020, whereby the application filed by the respondent was allowed and she was permitted to operate her bank account as well as locker maintained with the petitioner-bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have filed an application under Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur, seeking permission to operate the bank accounts bearing Account No. 100310044028768, standing in the name of applicant No.1, Account No. 100310044030571, standing in the name of applicant No.2 and Account No. 100310044004275, standing in the name of applicant No.3, as well as to operate the locker maintained with the petitioner-bank. Earlier, an award was passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur in the Case No. 25/2020 vide award dated 22.02.2022. The said award was challenged before this Court in WP227 No. 204/2022 which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 and the matter was remitted back to the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur with a direction to take up the proceeding in accordance with law and also to conclude the same as early as possible. He would further submit that despite the aforesaid direction, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, without following the procedure prescribed by law, again passed the impugned award dated 16.02.2026, whereby the application filed by the respondents was allowed and they were permitted to operate the aforesaid bank accounts and the locker maintained with the petitioner-bank. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned award, having been passed 3 without following the due procedure and in disregard of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023, is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. When this Court raised a query from learned counsel for the petitioner as to what particular irregularity or procedural infirmity has been committed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat and which mandatory procedure has allegedly not been followed, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out or demonstrate any such infirmity from the record and would submit that appropriate order may be passed. The petitioner has also failed to place on record the order-sheets of the proceedings before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, which could have enabled this Court to ascertain any alleged deviation from the procedure prescribed by law or from the directions contained in the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by this Court. There is no document annexed with the petition with respect to proceeding after 07.08.2023, which is the date on which the matter was remitted back to the learned Permanent Lok Adalat to demonstrate any procedural irregularity is committed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. All the documents are of the year, 2021, which are the copies of application, reply etc., which have already been considered at the time when order dated 07.08.2023 was passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP227 No. 204/2022. When the petitioner specifically raised their ground about procedural irregularity, they should filed sufficient material on record to demonstrate the same. A mere bald assertion that the proceedings 4 were conducted without following due procedure, in the absence of any material demonstrating such violation, cannot constitute a ground for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is not intended to be exercised merely because another view of the matter is possible or at the instance of a party making a general allegation of procedural irregularity without substantiating the same from the record. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any jurisdictional error, perversity, material irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this Court. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground whatsoever to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality, jurisdictional infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned award dated 16.02.2026. Consequently, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit