Lok Adalat – Permanent Lok Adalat has no power of jurisdiction to pass injunction order at threshold of the application filed under S.22-C.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral):- This petition is filed in order to challenge the validity of the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sirsa dated 29.7.2016 issuing a restraint order at the initial stage of the proceedings initiated on an application filed under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 22-C of the Act for the purpose of settlement of his dispute with his brother’s grandson (petitioner). The Permanent Lok Adalat recorded the following order, which is impugned herein:-

“Petition presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the petition be given to the respondent(s) for 11.8.2016 on filing of Rcs/copies. Till then the respondents are restrained from installing H.T Line from the land of the petitioner for supplying electricity to Davinder Singh and Gurjant Singh etc.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the permanent Lok Adalat has acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order as no such power flows from any of the provisions much less Section 22-C of the Act. It is further submitted that at the initial stage when the application under Section 22-C of the Act is filed, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to first act as a conciliator before turning to its role of an adjudicator. It is further submitted that had it been a case where the parties had failed to reach to an agreement in terms of Section 22(C)(7) of the Act and the Permanent Lok Adalat had acquired the jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits, then the matter would have been altogether different but at the threshold, the PLA had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the injunction order has been passed as the Permanent Lok Adalat is a Tribunal and has the trappings of the Court. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2070] : 2012(3) R.A.J. 61. Against this, counsel for the petitioner has referred to two decision of this Court in the case of Sham Lal v. State Election Commission, Punjab, 1997(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 82 and Kundal Singh v. The Executive Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala and others, 1975 PLR 661.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival contentions on the issue as to whether the PLA (PUS) has the jurisdiction to pass a restraint order much less injunction at the threshold of the application filed under Section 22-C, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 22-C of the Act which are reproduced as under:-

“22C. 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 the Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.

(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it--

(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in oppos