HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD General Manager Up Power Corporation Limited And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus Sunita And Another .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Amit Saxena, holding brief of Sri Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhadoi, dated 07.04.2025, passed in Case No.4 of 2022.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the award under challenge is without jurisdiction as the Permanent Lok Adalat passing the said award was not duly constituted as contemplated under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that a Permanent Lok Adalat notified for an area under sub-section 1 of Section 22B consists of one judicial member and two non judicial members as provided in sub- section 2 of Section 22B. In the case in hand, the award has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat comprising of the Chairman as the judicial member and one non judicial member. In the absence of the quorum of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the award dated 07.04.2025 stands vitiated and is laible to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 22B of the Act of 1987 and the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh passed in the case of Arshad Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh and others being Writ Appeal No.31 of 2022, decided on 01.08.2023. In the aforesaid judgment, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti (Smt) (Dead) and another, (1995) 5 SCC 159, it has been held that in absence of mandatory quorum of one judicial member being Chairman and two non judicial members being members, the impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat would be void, invalid and inoperative .

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.36222 of 2018, M/s M.R. Mittals Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Permanent Lok Adalat and 2 others, decided on 05.03.2019, in which it has been held that for transaction of business by the Permanent Lok Adalat, i.e., for making a valid award, it was necessary that the 'seating' of Permanent Lok Adalat is validly convened by the Chairman, who is authorized to do so. In the absence of the Chairman, it was not possible for the remaining two non judicial members to convene or call a meeting of a Permanent Lok Adalat to make an award. The Rule of upholding of award by majority of two non judicial members as reflected from the provisions of Section 22-E(3) of the Act of 1987 cannot be construed to mean that two non judicial members were competent to convene the meeting.

6. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that an authority of body constituted under the statute, its constitution provided in the statute has to be strictly adhered to.

7. In view of the aforesaid award dated 07.04.2025 passed by two members constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be in conflict with the statutory provisions of Section 22-B(2) of the Act.

8. Matter requires consideration.

9. Issue notice to respondent nos.1 and 2, returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken by registered/speed post, within a week.

10. All the respondents are allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

11. List thereafter.

12. Meanwhile the effect and operation of the impugned award dated

07.04.2025 shall remain in abeyance.

(Arun Kumar,J.) January 14, 2026 Ashok Kr.

ASHOK KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad