Permanent Lok Adalats lack the jurisdiction to decide policy matters and should act only as conciliators in disputes, not as adjudicative bodies.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners through this Writ Petition have challenged the award dated 04.07.2014 in P.L.A Case No 43 of 2013 passed by the Learned Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (PSU), Bolangir-Sonepur-Balangir allowing the P.L.A Case No 43 of 2013.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief fact of the case which may be put succinctly as follows:

(i) Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, who are Advocates of the Balangir Bar Association filed an application under Section 22G of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 praying for issuance of a direction to the Petitioners to install Coach Indication Boards at Titilagarh, Balangir Railway Station. In the absence of such Coach Indication Board, the general public are facing lot of inconveniences. The case was registered and numbered as PLA Case No.43/2013.

(ii) The Petitioners, who were arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said PLA case filed two written statements stating therein that the relief claimed are pertaining to policy matters which are decided by the Railway Board and the Government of India through the Ministry of Railways. Hence, the Zonal Headquarters, Divisional Headquarters and the Station Manager are not competent to represent the East Coast Railway in such matters and the reliefs claimed and passed by award impugned cannot be implemented by said parties before the court below.

(iii) The Permanent Lok Adalat (PSU), Balangir, Sonepur-Balangir after hearing the parties, vide award dated 04.07.2014 in P.L.A Case No.43 of 2013 allowed the said P.L.A Case and directed the Petitioner No.2 to move to the concerned Railway authorities within a period of two months from the date of the order for release of funds to have Coach Indication Board at Balangir Railway Station and to submit copy of the compliance report to the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. Hence, this Writ Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) It is submitted that the case is not maintainable inasmuch the claimed reliefs are policy matters which are decided by the Railway Board and, hence, the Zonal Headquarters, Divisional Headquarters and the Station Manager are not competent to represent the East Coast Railway in such matters. Additionally, only the Union of India through Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board are competent to decide the matter on merits. Considering that they have not been made parties in the afore-stated case. Therefore, this case should have been dismissed as non-joinder of necessary parties as the directions passed by the award cannot be implemented by the Petitioners who do not have any authority in law to carry out such directions.

(ii) It is further submitted that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PSU), Bolangir-Sonepur-Balangir has committed grave error in law apparent on the face of record by ignoring the statutory and legally binding nature of Railway Circular No. RB/L&A/005/2012 circulated vide Letter No.2012/LM/PAY/3/5 dated 11.09.2012 issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India in view of power granted under the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905. Comprehensive instructions have been issued by the Board for provisions of passenger amenities at stations that train Coach Indication system cannot be provided at the stations who come under the category of A, B, C, D, E and F category. Balangir Railway Station comes under the category of B station. Hence, the legal and statutory bar could not have been ignored by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(iii) It is submitted that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PSU), Balangir-Sonepur-Balangir has also ignored the fact and law that the authorities unde