Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37668
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Appellant
Versus
CONSUMER VIGILANCE CENTRE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 577 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.K.KARUNAKARAN, N.SATHEESH, P.A.AHAMED
For the Respondents: BLAZE K.JOSE
The Permanent Lok Adalat must follow statutory stages of conciliation before adjudicating disputes; failing to do so invalidates the award.
Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 22C - Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat regarding conciliation before deciding disputes - It was found that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the correct procedure and did not adhere to the necessary pre-litigation stages of conciliation before adjudicating on merits, resulting in the annulment of the award - The court emphasized that conciliation must be attempted before the Permanent Lok Adalat can resolve the issue. (Paras 5, 6, 11, 12)
(B) Jurisdiction of Court in Writ matters - The court can review awards of Permanent Lok Adalats under Article 226 if statutory procedure is not followed, stressing that delay is not a ground to uphold a flawed award. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed an appeal regarding an award given by the Permanent Lok Adalat concerning damages for over-voltage in a public utility service. The award was criticized for not following the statutory procedures required for adjudication.
Findings of Court:
Permanent Lok Adalat did not conduct necessary conciliation proceedings and decided the matter without reaching the required pre-litigation stages. The award was found invalid for violating the procedure mandated by the Act.
Issues: Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat followed the proper stages of conciliation before making its award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held a Permanent Lok Adalat can only decide a dispute post-conciliation and that any failure to follow the mandated procedures renders the award invalid.
Result: Writ petition allowed, award set aside and matter remanded to Permanent Lok Adalat.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and introduction to parties. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the permanent lok adalat award. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of conciliation process and statutory requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's conclusion and direction on proper procedure. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final order remanding the case to the permanent lok adalat. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners herein are the respondents in O.P.No.510/2007 on the file of the Permanent Lok Adalat (for short PLA) at Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents herein filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat for the damages allegedly caused to some of their electrical devices due to over-voltage flow of electricity through the electric line under Electrical Section, Vattiyoorkavu on 07/07/2007. Even though 07/07/07 is a beautiful date, according to the respondents it was a fateful day to them. The Permanent Lok Adalat considered the matter and passed an award as evident by Exhibit P6. It is mentioned in the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat that conciliation proceedings were arranged and initially the respondents before the PLA expressed willingness to settle the dispute. But later they have withdrawn from participating in the conciliation. In such circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalat decided the dispute as per Section 22C (8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987(for short 'the Act 1987'). Accordingly, Ext.P6 award is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2, 14, 15, and 20. There is no appearance for the other respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is vitiated because it violates the mandates in Section 22C of the Act 1987. The learned counsel takes me through of the Act 1987 and submitted that no attempt is made by the Permanent Lok Adalat to conciliate the matter before deciding the dispute. The learned Standing counsel after getting instructions from the petitioners submitted that there was no attempt on the part of the petitioners to withdraw from the conciliation as stated in Ext.P6 award. The learned counsel also takes me through the award and argued the case on merit also to convince the court that the award is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is without any evidence to show that there is a deficiency of service in public utility service. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P6 award is unsustainable.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the contesting respondents also. The learned counsel submitted that this is an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in the year 2009. The learned counsel submitted that it is an award passed in an application filed in the year 2007 and the Permanent Lok Adalat decided the matter in 2009. The learned counsel takes me through the impugned award which is Ext.P6. The learned counsel submitted that if one party to a proceeding refused to attend conciliation, the only remedy available to the PLA is to decide the dispute as contemplated under Section 22C(8). The learned counsel also submitted that even if there is any minor lapse on the part of the Permanent Lok Adalat, this Court may not interfere with the same at this distance of time because now almost 11 years elapsed after the impugned award. The learned counsel takes me through Ext.P6 award and submitted that some of the respondents were granted only a very small amount and in such circumstances, this Court may not interfere with Ext.P6 award.
5. I considered the contentions of the petitioners and the contesting respondents. The short point to be decided is about the stage at which a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a dispute on merit as per Section 22C (8) of the Act, 1987. It will be better to extract Section 22C of the Act 1987.
“22C. Cogniza
