IMPORTANT POINT
The Permanent Lok Adalat cannot issue generalized directions without following mandatory conciliation procedures as per the Legal Services Authorities Act.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 24.12.2014, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, whereby it issued generalized directions to the petitioner-bank to honor cheques upto the value of Rs.10 Lakhs, whether presented in the Home or non-home Branch, till the cheque books are made in consonance with the instructions issued by them. The operative part of the aforesaid award which has given rise to the filing of the present writ petition reads thus:

“They are also directed to instruct all the branches of State Bank of India to honor such cheques upto the value of Rs.10 lacs whether presented in the Home or Non-home branch till the cheque books are made in consonance with the instructions issued by them.”

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 30.04.2015, the following order was passed by this Court:

“On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with regard to the amount of compensation and the litigation expenses granted to respondent No. 2 and the award qua this aspect in upheld. However, the questions with regard to the generalized directions, which have been issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat apart from the other aspects, which are raised by the petitioners with regard to the procedure, which the Permanent Lok Adalat need to follow requires consideration, let notice be issued to the respondents for 20.10.2015.

Direction issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide award dated 24.12.2014 to instruct all the branches of State Bank of India to honour outstation cheques up to the value of Rs.10,00,000/- whether presented in the home or non-home branch till the cheque books are made in consonance with the instructions issued by them, is stayed till the next date of hearing.”

3. Since the merits of the award in relation to compensation as directed to be paid to the respondent No. 2-applicant are not under any further challenge, hence the factual aspect involved in the present case is not being gone into. The challenge being limited and confined, the issue as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) would have any jurisdiction or not to issue generalized directions is being examined.

4. Since no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2-applicant, Mrs. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate, was appointed as legal-aid-counsel to assist this Court on the issue raised herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-bank has argued that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) is not authorized under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to issue any generalized directions as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically directed that the adjudicatory powers under Section 22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has to be exercised as per the procedure prescribed under Section 22-C (1) to (7). The mandatory conciliation proceedings as contemplated under Section 22-C (4) to 22-C (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has to be exhausted before adjudication of the application under Section 22-C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 could be initiated. Invariably issuance of any such generalized directions would amount to an overreach of the powers without following the mandatory procedure. He further argues that award, to the said extent, would thus be bad and is liable to be set aside as it transgresses beyond the powers conferred on the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), by issuing such generalized directions.

6. It is further argued that where the law prescribes a procedure for doing of a thing, the same has to be done in the manner so prescribed and that the issuance of a generalized directions giving, rise to an executable order in such a manner, would amount to passing of an award even in favour of a claimant for whom mandatory conciliation proceedings had not been initiated.

7. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble S