K. Kannan, J. - (1.) A member of a public has a grievance that the 4th respondent has a workshop in motor vehicles and he causes pollution in a residential area. The petition was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the petition was dismissed. The counsel argues that as per the guidelines issued by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, disputes or issues that could be covered under the category of public utility service would include improper dumping and collection or garbage of unauthorized or prohibited areas and general sanitation or health linked issues (chemical spray of medicine for avoiding/killing insects e.g. mosquitoes. The counsel wants to argue that the issue of nuisance can be brought under the definition of "public utility service".
(2.) CHAPTER VI -A which is introduced by the Act 37 of 2002 w.e.f. 11.06.2002 sets up a forum of Permanent Lok Adalat for resolution of dispute relating to public utility service. This provision provides for a pre -legislative effort to settle matters between parties and if the settlement is not effected to render award on the disputes raised between parties, Section 22 -C refers to cognizance of cases of Permanent Lok Adalat. It states any non -compoundable offences and property disputes of whose value is more than Rs. 10 lakhs as not capable of being adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalat. A dispute that can arise, in my view, ought to relate to a public utility service of a person from whom the petitioner has availed of services or has a right to avail service. There must be a corresponding duty on the service provider to extend a particular duty to the petitioner. An act complained of now is not the availment of a public utility nor is there any particular duty which is brought in any contractual situation or an obligation under any statute. A nuisance which is complained of is a tortious wrong and appropriate remedy for its abatement shall be either a civil suit to seek for an injunction invoking a statutory provision relating to injunction or it could be through an action before the Executive Magistrate in the manner contemplated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The remedy sought through the Permanent Lok Adalat is misplaced and I will draw no inspiration to the guidelines issued by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority. The order already passed is maintained and the writ petition is dismissed.;