Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 72 (KER)

Babu v. K. S. E. B.

2000-02-02

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

body2000
Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Of all these cases, C.M.C. 123 of 1999 is not yet been admitted and service is complete in the other three cases. The common feature in these cases is that one and the same counsel was appearing for the different petitioners in the Electricity O.Ps. involved in these cases in the Addl. District Court, Parur and that the Kerala State Electricity Board is the respondent in all these cases. The contentions raised by the petitioners in all these cases is more or less similar and hence they are disposed of through a common order. 2. The petitioners' contention is that when the case came up before the Lok-Adalath on 21.1.1998 the learned Addl. District Judge was also present to mediate and settle the cases and that when E.O.P. 40 of 1993 was taken up first the learned judge unilaterally declared that awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be a reasonable compensation and that the client should not have been greedy. The imputation was objected to by the counsel and there ensured a verbal altercation. The trial judge observed that he would not award any enhanced compensation on any of the matters moved by the counsel and also that all claims preferred by the counsel contained inflated and excessive claims. The case was adjourned with advice to the parties to settle the matter and the judge also mentioned that if it was not settled, there will not be any enhancement at all. 3. When the matter was taken up again in another Adalath on 29.7.1999 a retired District Judge was presiding at the Adalath. He mentioned that there was no prospect of granting any enhanced compensation and consequently the case has come back to the regular Court. The petitioners apprehend that they would not get any enhanced compensation from the judge concerned and it is in this background that the petitions for transfer are filed. 4. In view of the personal allegations against the judge concerned, his remarks were called for in CMC Nos. 125 of 1999 and 113 of 1999. The learned judge has stated that there was no settlement of any Electricity O.Ps. on 21.12.1999; that the settlement made on 22.12.1998 and 23.12.1998 took place in a cordial atmosphere and that there was no incident as alleged. 125 of 1999 and 113 of 1999. The learned judge has stated that there was no settlement of any Electricity O.Ps. on 21.12.1999; that the settlement made on 22.12.1998 and 23.12.1998 took place in a cordial atmosphere and that there was no incident as alleged. He also states that he interfered only when the Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B. and the counsel for the petitioners could not agree on the quantum. There is no compulsion to settle the claims in the O.Ps. and there was no verbal altercation with the counsel. He also did not make any comment regarding the amount claimed in the O.Ps.; nor declare that he would not allow any enhancement on the claims filed by the particular counsel. According to him the allegations in the petitions are false and intended to lower the dignity, integrity and independence of the judiciary and the averments would even amount to contempt of court. It is also stated by the learned District Judge that he is not at all prejudiced with the counsel and that he has no objection to the transfer of the case to any other court provided it is not based on the allegations in the O.P. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Electricity Board appearing in CMCs 112 and 113 of 1999 also. According to him there was no such incident as alleged in the petition. In view of the clear denial of the allegations in the petition by the learned District Judge I am not inclined to make a transfer of the case to any other Court. Because judicial officers are also expected to be involved in the conduct of Lok-Adalaths, there may be occasions for them to make suggestions with regard to amounts payable or about possible course of settlement. In fact, they are expected to do so. When any such suggestions are made, it does not at all indicate that the judge would be inclined to stand by such observations when cases are decided on the merit. If transfers as sought for herein are allowed, that will create a bad precedent and set a bad trend. In the circumstances, the petitioners are dismissed. It is expected that the Addl. If transfers as sought for herein are allowed, that will create a bad precedent and set a bad trend. In the circumstances, the petitioners are dismissed. It is expected that the Addl. District Judge, Parur will dispose of the cases in a totally unprejudiced manner and without in any way relying on the possible suggestions made by him during the holding of the Adalaths and would decide the cases purely based on merits and according to the evidence adduced in the case.