Back
2009 Supreme(All) 1314
[2009(4) ADJ 713 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND ARUN TANDON, JJ.
ARUN KUMAR UPADHAYA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13709 of 2009, decided on 10th April, 2009)
Counsel :
Neeraj Upadhya, Addl.C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987—Sections 19(5), 20 and 22—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 89—Arbitration Act, 1940—Section 49—Constitution of India—Article 39-A—Settlement—Jurisdiction to settle dispute, even at a pre-litigation stage—If vests with Lok Adalat constituted under Act of 1987—Plea that there is no power, or jurisdiction in any private society, as claimed by petitioner to insist that all disputes be referred to it—Petitioner claims to be the Secretary of Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata Legal Aid Samiti—Petitioner claims that Samiti has been authorised by U.P. State Legal Services Authority, vide letter dated 14.3.2005—Representation given by petitioner to District Magistrate to refer compoundable offences/cases—Which are to be decided at a pre-litigation stage—Case of petitioner that Samiti was working with spirit of Article 39-A of Constitution, as well as Section 89, C.P.C.—And, that aim of Samiti was to minimise litigation by pre-litigation settlement—Hence, petition, praying for a mandamus commanding respondent-2 (D.M.) to decide matter afresh—Also, petitioner sought to quash order, dated 23.1.2009 passed by D.M., cancelling letter of A.D.M. dated 22.1.2009—Held, 1987 Act contains provisions for providing financial aid to voluntary organisations and social action groups—1987 Act has been enacted to give effect to object and purpose of Article 39-A of Constitution—When 1987 Act provides complete mechanism for settlement of disputes through Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat, rights and obligations of parties and their role have to be found out from 1987 Act itself—Moreover, 1987 Act, does not contain any indication that cases have to be referred to voluntary organisations for settlement—And, settlement of cases have to take place according to 1987 Act by Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats—Hence, petitioner not entitled for any relief, as claimed in petition. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 15, 19, 20 and 21]
Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar) to decide the matter afresh. A further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner claims to be Secretary of Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata (Legal Aid) Samiti, 50 Arun Nagar, Etah. The petitioner claims that Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) has been authorised by the U.P. State Legal Services Authority vide its letter dated 14th March, 2005. The petitioner’s case is that petitioner had given a representation to the District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar to refer compoundable offences/cases, which are to be decided at pre-litigation stage. The Additional District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar passed an order dated 22nd January, 2009 directing the subordinate officers to refer compoundable cases to the Samiti. The District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar by an order passed on the next date, i.e., 23rd January, 2009 cancelled the letter dated 22nd January, 2009 issued by the Additional District Magistrate holding that the said letter was issued by mistake. The District Magistrate further held that no case be referred to Samiti since it is not authorised for it. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detail representation to the District Magistrate on 29th January, 2009 by speed post praying that the order dated 23rd January, 2009 be recalled. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the District Judge/Chairman, Zila Vidhik Sewa Pradhikaran observing that in event any case before the Court is to be referred for alternate dispute resolution in accordance with Section 89 of C.P.C., the same may be referred to the Samiti if it is permissible. The petitioner’s case further is that Samiti is working in accordance with the spirit of Article 39A of the Constitution of India as well as Section 89 of the C.P.C. and the aim of the Samiti is to minimise the litigation by pre-litigation settlement. The Samiti has also referred to a letter dated 30th December, 2004 issued by the National Legal Service Authority to the petitioner in reference to the proposal of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition, contended that petitioner being Secretary of the Society, which is engaged in free legal aid, it has right to get settled the disputes and the district administration is required to make reference of the disputes, which come before it and could be settled by compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Judge had already issued an order dated 12th July, 2006 directing all subordinate Courts to make reference for alternate dispute resolution under Section 89 of the C.P.C. to the Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the District Magistrate dated 23rd January, 2009 recalling the earlier order dated 22nd January, 2009 was not correct. Earlier the Additional District Magistrate has rightly directed the subordinate authorities to refer the disputes to petitioner’s Samiti.
5. Sri Neeraj Upadhaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has no right to claim that disputes be referred by the district administration at pre-litigation stage to the Samiti. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that jurisdiction to settle the dispute even at pre-litigation stage vests with the Lok Adalats constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities
