The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the statutory pre-condition for exercising power under section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 and the emphasis on the failure of proposed conciliation under section 22C(7) as a condition precedent for exercising jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. P C. Roy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

"For quashing/setting aside the Judgment dated 9.9.2008 and Award dated 20.9.2008 contained in Annexure-1 and 1/A passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 361 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the Permanaent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as the Court below for the sake of brevity) has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,26,000/- in exercise of its power under section 22C(8) and 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987."

4. The only point which has been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner is that the power under section 22 C (8) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been wrongly exercised by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by Permanent Lok Adalat inasmuch as the condition precedent for adjudication under section 22 C (8) of the aforesaid Act has not been satisfied in the instant case. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to para-5 the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 refers to following observations/findings of the Permanent Lok Adalat :

"During conciliation O.P. National Insurance Company limited denied to conciliate this case on the ground that verification report regarding validity of Driving license has not yet been received. As such, this case is taken for determination under sections 22 C (8) and 22 D of Legal Services Authorities Act".

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not participate in the conciliation proceeding and there has been no conciliation proceeding in the matter in view of the fact that the petitioner had not received the report regarding validity of the driving license which was still awaited. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not participate in the conciliation proceeding and in fact no conciliation proceeding had taken place therefore the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have assumed jurisdiction under section 22 C (8) read with section 22 D of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and decided the case on merits. Counsel submits that in view of this aspect of the matter the impugned order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat is wholly without jurisdiction and he submits that the impugned order is fit to be set-aside on this jurisdictional issue.

6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that although there has been no conciliation as is apparent from para-5 of the impugned order but still the petitioner had participated in the proceeding and accordingly it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Permanent Lok Adalat had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 22 C (8) of the aforesaid Act. However, he could not dispute the fact recorded in para-5 of the impugned order as no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case.

7. After hearing the parties and after considering the material available on record, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition on account of following facts and reasons :

(a) section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as follows :

22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. - (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute :

Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:

Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:

Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with th