Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 693 (PAT)

Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. Ravi Kant Singh

2013-06-25

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2013
ORDER From the pleadings in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it appears that some misconception prevails with respect to the existence, jurisdiction and functioning of “Permanent Lok Adalats” which are certainly creation of Chapter VIA of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), introduced by way of amendment vide Amendment Act No. 37 of 2002 in the Act. 2. The order dated 10.06.2011 said to have been passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat” Kaimur at Bhabhua in Miscellaneous Case No. 06 of 2004, whereby it has set aside the award dated 20.12.2003 passed by Lok Adalat Camp Kaimur at [Bhabhua] is under challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Facts are not much in dispute and are based on record. A Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Sub-Judge-1st, Bhabhua for declaration of his title over schedule „Ka? of the land as described in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to settle their disputes through compromise. Accordingly, a joint compromise petition was filed by them on 29.09.2003 in the said Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 which has been brought on record as Annexure-2. In view of the compromise petition, the trial Court, noticing chances of settlement of dispute through compromise, referred the matter to “Lok Adalat”. The “Lok Adalat” on the basis of such compromise disposed of the matter and prepared an award on 20.12.2003 which is Annexure-3 to the present application. 4. It is alleged in the present application that Respondent No. 2, though not a party in Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 filed the Miscellaneous Case No. 06 of 2004 in “Permanent Lok Adalat” for setting aside the award dated 20.12.2003 on the ground that he was the adopted son of Late Sheo Bhajan Singh, husband of Respondent No. 3, in the present application. Respondent No. 3 was defendant in Title Suit No. 283 of 2003. She is said to have contended before the “Permanent Lok Adalat” that any concession made by her in favour of the petitioner was void and fraudulent. Respondent No. 3 was defendant in Title Suit No. 283 of 2003. She is said to have contended before the “Permanent Lok Adalat” that any concession made by her in favour of the petitioner was void and fraudulent. “Permanent Lok Adalat” is said to have issued notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied, supporting the award passed by the “Lok Adalat” on the basis of comprise. The said “Permanent Lok Adalat”, Kaimur at Bhabhua, thereafter, is said to have considered the rival contentions and after conducting full-fledged trial and after assessing oral as well as documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 10.06.2011, setting aside the earlier award passed by “Lok Adalat” dated 20.12.2003. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that award dated 20.12.2003 passed by “Lok Adalat” on the basis of compromise, attained finality in terms of Section 21 of the Act which was not appealable before any Court. He further submitted that power of review is statutory in nature and in the absence of such power “Permanent Lok Adalat” Kaimur at Bhabhua could not have reviewed the award passed by “Lok Adalat”. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, defending the impugned order passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat” Kaimur at Bhabhua has contended that respondent No. 2 was intentionally not impleaded as a party in Title Suit No. 283 of 2003 and award passed by “Lok Adalat” dated 20.12.2003 was collusive and in such circumstance “Permanent Lok Adalat”, taking into account entire facts and circumstances rightly set aside the award passed by “Lok Adalat”. 7. Before I proceed to deal with the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties in the present case, it would be apt to deal with the definition, functions and jurisdiction of “Permanent Lok Adalat” as also its establishment under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. “Permanent Lok Adalat” has been defined under Section 22-A(a) of the Act- as a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22-B of the Act. “Permanent Lok Adalat” has been defined under Section 22-A(a) of the Act- as a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22-B of the Act. Section 22-B of the Act deals with the establishment of “Permanent Lok Adalats” and reads thus:- “22-B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. (emphasis added) (2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of- a) a person who is, or has been, a District Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a District Judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government.” 8. From the reading of Section 22-B, it will appear that a “Permanent Lok Adalat” can be established by notification by State Authority or the Central Authority, as the case may be, at such places for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more “public utility services”. From the reading of Section 22-B, it will appear that a “Permanent Lok Adalat” can be established by notification by State Authority or the Central Authority, as the case may be, at such places for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more “public utility services”. Public utility services have been defined under Section 22-A(b) of the Act thus:- “(b) “public utility service” means any- (i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or (ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or (iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or (iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or (v) service in hospital or dispensary; or (vi) insurance service, and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.” 9. From the conjoint reading of Section 22-A(a), 22-B and 22-A(b), it would be evident that “Permanent Lok Adalat” can be established only for exercising jurisdiction in respect of one or more “public utility services” as defined under Section 22-A. 10. A “Permanent Lok Adalat”, in view of these provisions can have no jurisdiction with respect to any matter other than public utility services as defined under Section 22-A(b). 11. This is also to be noted that these provisions fall under Chapter VI–A of the Act which deals with pre-litigation, conciliation and settlement. From the heading of Chapter VI-A, it will appear that a “Permanent Lok Adalat” shall have no jurisdiction in respect of a matter which had been pending in a court of law. It can have jurisdiction with respect to only such matters which have so far not travelled to the court of law. 12. This is as regards, the jurisdiction of “Permanent Lok Adalat” relating to subject matter. It can have jurisdiction with respect to only such matters which have so far not travelled to the court of law. 12. This is as regards, the jurisdiction of “Permanent Lok Adalat” relating to subject matter. Section 22-B provides the Constitution of a “Permanent Lok Adalat” Section 22-B(2) reads as follows:- “(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of- c) a person who is, or has been, a District Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a District Judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and d) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government.” 13. A “Permanent Lok Adalat” is to be established by Central Authority or State Authority within the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 consisting of a person who is or has been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or has held judicial office, higher in rank than that of a District Judge who shall be the Chairman of “Permanent Lok Adalat” and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service be nominated by the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government on recommendation of the Central Authority or as the case may be, the State Authority. 14. From reading of the impugned order, it appears that it has the seal of ^^ihBklhu inkf/kdkjh] LFkkbZ yksd vnkyr] dSewj** (Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur). At the top of the order it has been written, “In the Court of Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua”. According to Section 22-C of the Act, any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court can make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute. 15. There are two aspects of the matter. According to Section 22-C of the Act, any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court can make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute. 15. There are two aspects of the matter. As has been noted above, none of the public utility services within the meaning of Section 22-A(b) was the subject matter of the suit. The subject matter of the suit had no connection at all with the public utility services for which Permanent Lok Adalats are established and only over which the Permanent Lok Adalat can have jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the “Permanent Lok Adalat” had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 for any purpose whatsoever with respect to the subject matter of the Title Suit No. 283 of 2003. The impugned order dated 10.06.2011 passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat” Kaumur at Bhabhua, in Miscellaneous Case No. 06 of 2004 cannot be sustained being absolutely without jurisdiction. Secondly; in any case, a “Permanent Lok Adalat” could not have entertained any dispute which was brought before any court prior to parties approaching to “Permanent Lok Adalat”. A “Permanent Lok Adalat” certainly has the jurisdiction even to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties but only with respect to pre-litigation matters when the dispute relates to one of the public utility services. The “Permanent Lok Adalat” cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with any dispute other than that provided under Chapter IV-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 16. Submission made on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the discussions as above. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.06.2011 passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat” Kaimur at Bhabhua in Miscellaneous Case No. 06 of 2004 is set aside. 17. This order will not preclude the respondents from approaching appropriate forum in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the award of said Lok Adalat dated 20.12.2003.