The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Permanent Lok Adalat must follow the prescribed procedure for conducting conciliation proceedings and should not directly adjudicate disputes without attempting conciliation, as outlined in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Bharat Bhusan Parsoon, J.

This revision petition by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam [for short, "UHBVNL"] is directed against order dated 11.3.2005 [Annexure P/1] passed by Permanent Lok Adalat [PLA], Panipat vide which, pursuant to an application filed by applicant - Smt. Kusum Jain, adjudicating the dispute, the respondents had been directed to release power connection in favour of the applicant of her premises earlier known as M/s Mahavir Woollen Mills, Panipat, on receipt of usual charges etc.

2. It is claimed by the revisionists-petitiones, who were respondents before the PLA that Anil Jain, husband of applicant, Smt. Kusum Jain, was having an electric connection bearing No. BM-544 for the aforesaid Mill, which hitherto was functional in the premises bearing No. E- 33A, Industrial Area, Panipat and he was partner in the said firm. Due to non-payment of arrears amounting to Rs.5,19,086.05 paise for electric consumption, the electric supply was disconnected.

3. It is averred that the applicant, now respondent herein, in connivance with her husband, had wrongly claimed herself to be lessee of the said property and without payment of arrears of electricity charges, had got the impugned order. It is further pleaded that the impugned order was obtained by the respondent without bringing correct facts to the notice of the PLA.

4. It is claimed that the PLA could not have adjudicated the matter on merits, particularly when the procedure prescribed for conducting proceedings before the PLA had not been followed. Raising jurisdictional issue and also explaining attending facts and circumstances, acceptance of the revision petition has been sought.

5. Respondent, though had put in appearance earlier on 22.5.2006, but never turned up thereafter. The revision petition was admitted for hearing on 30.10.2006 when operation of the impugned order, dated 11.3.2005 [Annexure P/1] had also been stayed in the meanwhile.

6. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the petitioners while perusing the impugned order as also the grounds of revision petition.

7. Before embarking upon the controversy between the parties, it would be of avail to recapitulate the facts about which there is no dispute. M/s Mahavir Woollen Mills, Panipat was carrying on its manufacturing activity in premises i.e., E-33A, Industrial Area, Panipat. Industrial electric connection bearing No.BM-544 had been installed therein. This consumer of electricity had fallen in arrears of payment of consumption of electric energy. When arrears for a sum of Rs.5,19,086.05 paise remained unpaid for a considerable period, the electricity supply was disconnected by the petitioners herein.

8. Trouble stated thereafter. Applicant claimed herself to be a lessee of the premises and claiming independent, set part and different possessory title to possession of the property, she sought electric connection in the premises. When the non-applicant - UHBVNL and another appeared before the PLA, the matter was contested tooth and nail. Despite strong opposition and resistance offered by the petitioners herein, the PLA passed the impugned order.

9. No doubt, there is a provision providing sanctity to the Award of PLA where it has been described as final. For ready reference, Section 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] is appended as below :-

"22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final - (1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.

(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.

(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in