Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 559 (AP)

R. Sarojana v. Oranganti Rajitha

2013-07-17

N.V.RAMANA, VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

body2013
Judgment : Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16-03-2013 passed by the Chairman, Taluka Legal Services Authority, Narsampet/respondent No.3 in P.L.C No. 152 of 2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Education and the learned Standing Counsel for the Legal Services Authority. Though notice is served on respondent Nos.1 and 2, there is no appearance on their behalf. 3. The facts of the case show that for preparing mid-day meals to the students of Upper Primary School, Lingapuram under the mid-day meals scheme, eight dwakra groups evinced interest. The selection among the groups is governed by G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25-11-2002. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who belong to one of the groups were selected for preparation of mid-day meals to the students of said school from 02-01-2007 to April, 2012. Thereafter, as per the resolution of the Gramasabha dated 02-09-2012, in the place of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners who belong to another group were entrusted with the work of preparing mid-day meals under the mid-day meals scheme and they have been working as such from April, 2012. Aggrieved by such resolution, respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the Taluka Legal Services Authority, Narsampet stating that the headmaster of the school; the Mandal Educational Officer, Chennaraopet; the Village Special Officer and MPDO are getting the mid-day meals prepared by another group under political influence. The said pre-litigation case was registered by the Taluka Legal Services Authority, Narsampet as PLC No. 152 of 2012 and notices were issued to the headmaster, the Mandal Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer. In response to the notices, the said authorities produced documents showing that the disputes have been resolved amongst the eight groups and each group is given choice of one year by lottery method. The Taluka Legal Services Authority however was of the view that the official respondents failed to show any provision which authorises them to remove respondent Nos.1 and 2 and consequently gave interim directions that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be continued in the preparation of mid-day meals in the name of their group in the Upper Primary School, Lingapuram, until they are removed by due process of law. 1 and 2 be continued in the preparation of mid-day meals in the name of their group in the Upper Primary School, Lingapuram, until they are removed by due process of law. The said order is questioned by the writ petitioners in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the Taluka Legal Services Authority has no power to give directions under Section 19(5) read with Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987(for short ‘the Act’) and that the order impugned in the writ petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. On 10-06-2013, while issuing notice on admission, this Court directed the official respondents to get instructions and produce the necessary records. Subsequently, on 10-07-2013 we directed the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to get instructions in the matter. 5. The District Educational Officer has filed a counter affidavit together with the documents wherein it is stated in paragraph 3 that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have worked from 02-01-2007 to April, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioners were entrusted with the work from April, 2012 to 2013. However, on account of the impugned order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are preparing and serving mid-day meals to the students of the school. It is also stated that after respondent Nos.1 and 2 obtained interim orders, there was a physical obstruction created by the petitioners and a quarrel also took place which is subject matter of Crime No. 126 of 2013 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 186, 427, 448 read with Section 149 IPC on the file of Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal Rural. It is also stated that the arrangement for supply of midday meals is strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25-11-2002. 6. Section 19 of the Act provides that legal services authorities at all levels may organize lok adalats at such intervals and places for exercising such jurisdiction for such areas as it thinks fit. Regulation 12 of the Lok Adalat Regulations, 2009 provides that in a pre litigation matter, the Legal Services Authority or Committee shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned before referring the pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat and the role of Legal Services Authority or Committee is only to refer a pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat. Regulation 12 of the Lok Adalat Regulations, 2009 provides that in a pre litigation matter, the Legal Services Authority or Committee shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned before referring the pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat and the role of Legal Services Authority or Committee is only to refer a pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat. The Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority has also issued a circular in ROC.No.APSLSA/LSW-91/2006, dated 15-06-2006, wherein it is specifically provided that the District Legal Services Authority or the Mandal Legal Services Authority as the case may be shall receive pre-litigation applications from the parties and if such Legal Services Authority or Committee, as the case may be, comes to a conclusion that pre-litigation matter needs to be determined by Lok Adalats, refer the matter to the respective Lok Adalat. 7. Thus it is clear from the above that the power of the Legal Services Authority/Committee is only to receive the pre-litigation case, hear the parties and if it is satisfied, refer the dispute to Lok Adalat. In the present case, the pre-litigation case filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was entertained by the Taluka Legal Services Authority/respondent No.3 and it went further and granted directions pending further orders. We are therefore satisfied that the order impugned is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Taluka Legal Services Authority and ultra vires the Act, as Taluka Legal Services Authority has no such power to grant interim orders as if it was exercising a judicial function like a civil Court. In terms of the Act, the regulations made thereunder and the circular referred to above, if the Taluka Legal Services Authority is satisfied that a reference is required to be made to Lok Adalat, it can do so but it cannot issue interim directions as has been made in the present case. 8. The impugned order thus istotally without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.