Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 797 (MP)

Municipal Council Chhatarpur v. Kashi Prasad Sahu

2019-11-15

SUJOY PAUL

body2019
ORDER 1. With the consent, finally heard. 2. The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution to the Order dated 9.12.2017 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat, Chhatarpur in Case No. 84/2017. 3. Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the Order dated 09.12.2017 submits that there was no consent on the part of the petitioner nor parties entered into any settlement. The Lok Adalat could not have issued a mandamus/command to undertake a particular exercise in a particular manner. The mandamus so issued by Order dated 9.12.2017 runs contrary to the scheme of establishment of Lok Adalat. 4. Per contra, Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance on section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 submits that the award of Lok Adalat became final and it cannot be called in question in any proceeding including the present proceeding. 5. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Shri Dubey has not refuted the contention of Shri Seth that without there being any consent and settlement, the Lok Adalat issued positive directions/issued a mandamus on merits. His only objection is founded upon section 22E of the Act of the said Act. 8. In (2008) 2 SCC 660 (State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others) and (2018) 13 SCC 480 (Bharvagi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others), the apex Court opined that a writ petition is maintainable against an Order passed by the Lok Adalat. Even otherwise, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed on the basis of a statutory provision, namely, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Reference is made to (2014) 6 SCC 1 (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.). In para 29, the apex Court opined as under: "29. ......But this Court has repeatedly held that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority excluding the power of any other authority or Court to examine such a decision will not be a bar for the High Court or this Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution because a statutory provision cannot take away a power vested by the Constitution. To quote, the observations of this Court in Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore [ (2012) 11 SCC 224 ]: 17. Considering the settled position of law that the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution could not be affected by the provisions made in a statute by the Legislature making the decision of the tribunal final or conclusive, we hold that sub-section (1) of section 245S of the Act, insofar as, it makes the advance ruling of the Authority binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction and on the Commissioner and income-tax authorities subordinate to him, does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution or the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to the advance ruling of the Authority.' In our view, therefore, the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by any aggrieved party and if such a challenge is made, the High Court can examine the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, in accordance with the settled principles of law." 9. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the permanent Lok Adalat has exceeded the jurisdiction in issuing directions on merits without there being any settlement or consent of the parties. Accordingly, the Order dated 9.12.2017 is set aside. 10. The matter is remitted back before the Court below to decide it in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of.