High Court Of Jharkhand
D.N.Patel, J.
Branch Manager, Hazaribag Branch, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Anand Prakash Handa - Respondents
W. P. No. 1359 of 2011
Decided on: Jun 20,2011
Jurisdiction - Permanent Lok Adalat - The court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction, and authority to decide the dispute on merits without the written consent of the parties. The role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is primarily that of a conciliator and not an adjudicator.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, arguing that it had no power to decide the dispute without the written consent of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Permanent Lok Adalat had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the dispute on merits without the necessary written consent of the parties. It quashed and set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, authority to decide the dispute without written consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Permanent Lok Adalat can only decide the dispute on merits when there is written consent by the parties. Its primary role is that of a conciliator, not an adjudicator.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and disposed of the case, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
1. THE present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribag in P.L.A. Case No. 21 of 2010 dated Nth January, 2011 mainly on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties, on merits, since never any consent in writing was given by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
2. MOREOVER, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and has pointed out that there is gross violation of Section 22-C (4) as well as Section 22-C (7 and 8) of the Act, 1987 and, therefore, the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribag deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon several decisions including the decision rendered by this Court in W.R (C) No. 2477 of 2008 decided on 26th April, 2010 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision also, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties and is not supposed to adjudicate the dispute, without there being any consent by the parties, in writing.
3. NOTICE for final disposal of this writ petition upon the respondent was issued by this Court on 6th May, 2011 and the affidavit has been filed by the officer of the petitioner that the respondent has refused to accept the notice of this Court.
4. IN view of this affidavit dated 13th May, 2011, it appears that the respondent is served.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribag in P.L.A. Case No. 21 of 2010, it has been held that the case is maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The petitioner has objected about the jurisdiction and authority of the Permanent Lok Adalat. It appears from the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute, on merits without there being any consent by the petitioner The predominant role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is of a conciliator and not of an adjudicator. It has been held by this Court in W.P (C) No. 2477 of 2008 dated 26th April, 2010 that the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute, on merits only when there is consent, in writing, by the parties, to the dispute. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid writ petition, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribag in P.L.A. Case No. 21 of 2010 dated 14th January, 2011 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
5. WHENEVER certified copy of this judgment is demanded by anyone, I hereby direct the Registry to supply the certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2477 of 2008 decided on 26th April, 2010.
6. THE petition is, hereby allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.