The central legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity, and other principles of justice as outlined in Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act must be adhered to, especially in the context of deciding disputes during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

ORDER

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed inter alia against the impugned order/award dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lok Adalat') whereby the petition (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LSA Act') was partly allowed. Challenge is also made to the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P-9) whereby the petitioner's review application was rejected by the Lok Adalat.

3. The brief facts, relevant to the present Us, are that the petitioner is a consumer of electricity. In July 2018, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-2) before the Lok Adalat under Section 22C(1) of the LSA Act raising disputes regarding his electricity connection and billing. Respondent No.1 filed its reply (Annexure P-3) to the said application. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were undertaken by the Lok Adalat which did not bear fruit. On 16.03.2020 the Lok Adalat suggested the following terms of settlement for observations/consent of the parties :

"1. Whether the respondent is ready to overhaul the bills for the period 25.09.2007 to 23.02.2014 on the basis of average consumption & whether the petitioner accepts such overhauling of bills.

2. Whether the respondent is ready to exempt surcharge for the bills period 08.02.2016 and 13.04.2016 and adjust this surcharge amount in the final bill and whether the petitioner is ready to accept this term."

4. Thereafter, the Lok Adalat passed the impugned order/award dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) partly allowing the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel immediately filed an application (Annexure P-6) before the Lok Adalat seeking review of the order/award dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-5). Vide impugned order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P-9) the Lok Adalat dismissed the review application. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 24.12.2020 neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present before the Lok Adalat on which date the impugned order/award (Annexure P-5) was passed. In fact, it is contended, that the Lok Adalat functions from the premises of the District Legal Services Authority, Rohtak which remained closed for a few days in December 2020 as some staff of the District Legal Services Authority, Rohtak were infected with Covid-19. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 24.12.2020 when the Clerk of the petitioner's counsel had visited the Lok Adalat to note the next date of hearing, he was asked to come on 28.12.2020 for that purpose. However, on 28.12.2020 the petitioner's counsel was surprised to learn that the case had been finally decided on 24.12.2020, without hearing the petitioner or his counsel. The petitioner's counsel immediately filed the application (Annexure P-6) before the Lok Adalat seeking review of the order/award dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) which application was supported by affidavits of the petitioner's counsel as well as his Clerk.

6. Since a copy of the writ petition was supplied in advance to respondent No.1 through email, Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Additional A.G. Haryana put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned order/award (Annexure P-5) reveals that on 16.03.2020 the Lok Adalat had suggested certain terms of settlement for observations/consent of the parties. As per the averments made in para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner filed his observations dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-4) to the proposed terms of settlement and the observations by respondent No.1 were awaited. The impugned order/award (Annexure P-5) makes no mention about what transpired after the Lok Adalat suggested certain terms of settlement on 16.03.2020.