ORDER :

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the Additional Permanent Lok Adalath at Bangalore in PLA Petition No.7799/2012 whereby, application filed by the respondent has been allowed.

2. Brief facts are :

The petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-M/s. Mac Charles (I) Ltd. (Company) has subscribed the telephone lines from respondent-M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL) for the purpose of its business right from the date of its incorporation, for various business needs. The petitioner Company was and even now is regularly making payments of all the bills as and when raised by respondent-BSNL. There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent-BSNL in respect of certain dues concerning the bill for the year 1989 and pertaining to telephone lines 77934, 77936 and 73248. A dispute was raised by the petitioner in O.S.No.31/1989 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru whereby, the Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- and then raised a dispute before the Arbitrator in accordance with Section 7B of the Telegraphic Act. Accordingly, a dispute was raised before the Departmental Arbitrator who, after hearing both the parties on 01.05.2003, rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed them to pay an amount of Rs.99,703/-. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid entire due amount. After lapse of years, the respondent-BSNL has filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Act’ for brevity). Pursuant to that application which has been numbered as PLA Petition No.7799/2012, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bangalore has issued a notice under the said Act. After service of notice dated 30.11.2012 as per Annexure L the petitioner has submitted his reply by Annexure-P dated 04.04.2013. Subsequently, by order dated 21.05.2013, the Additional Permanent Lok Adalat, Bangalore, passed a final award by allowing the petition filed by respondent-BSNL. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Sri. B.S.Satyanand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the notice issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner has filed a reply on 04.04.2013 and also requested the Permanent Lok Adalat to grant some more time for filing detailed reply. Subsequently, the permanent Lok Adalat without conducting any conciliation proceeding as per the provisions of Section 22C(4), (5) and (6) of the Act and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner has passed the impugned award at Annexure-Q dated 21.05.2003. The same is contradictory to the provisions of the Act. Hence, the petitioner sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, Sri Y.Hari Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the notice, the petitioner has given a reply. Subsequently, the matter was called on 15.04.2013, petitioner was absent on that date and the matter was adjourned to 24.04.2013, on the said date also none appeared for the petitioner. Hence, the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly passed the award in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. The Parliament has enacted a law called Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with an object to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. Before deciding the case, for better understanding relevant provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act are extracted.

7. Chapter VI relates to Lok Adalats. Section 19 is related to organization of Lok Adalats. Section 20 deals with cog