IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.737 of 2026 An application under Section 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.

---------------

Narendra Kumar Mishra … … Petitioner -Versus-

Branch Manager, AXIS … … Opp. Parties Bank, Bhubaneswar and another Advocates appeared in the case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Bishnu Brata Singh, Advocate For Opp. Party :

------------------

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decided on 12^th February, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner was the applicant before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Khurda at Bhubaneswar. The P.L.A. Case No.50/2021 was disposed of by award dated 09.09.2025. The matter was taken up under the provisions of Section 22 C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

2. The petitioner challenging the said award seeks for pendentelite interest up to the period of payment. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat has directed for payment of interest @ 6% per annum in case of delay in payment of the awarded sum. As on date, the amount has been paid and the award has been satisfied.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By order dated 15.01.2026, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the following observations were made by this Court:

“4. On being asked the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the awards passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat can also be challenged and given some time he shall give citation/precedence on the same. It was also brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties agreed before the Permanent Lok Adalat for disposal of the matter and the matter has been taken up under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, therefore the scope of interference in appeal is not there.”

Today, the matter was heard again. The materials available on records are delved into in detail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to section 22D and 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which are reproduced herein:

“22D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.—The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of

1872).

22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.—(1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.

(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.

(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding.

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court.]”

[Underlined part of the provision are emphasized and applied in the present case]

5. Referring to section 22D and 22E, it is submitted that despite the express bar contained in the statute, the petitioner can challenge the award before this Court seeking interest for the period the matter was kept pending before the learned Lok Adalat.

6. The scope of interference by High Court in the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat or Lok Adalat at any level has been extensively dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the law has been se