IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

WRIT PETITION No.26413 of 2009 Between:

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Rep. by its Chief Manager and another Petitioners VERSUS The Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services,Karimnagar and another. Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 12.02.2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J ________________

N. TUKARAMJI, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI + WRIT PETITION No.26413 of 2009 % 12.02.2024 # Between:

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Rep. by its Chief Manager and another Petitioners VERSUS The Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services,Karimnagar and another.

Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Valluri Mohan Srinivas ^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. Shashikiran Pusluri for R-1.

Mr. D.Bhasker Reddy, for R-2.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karimnagar/respondent No.1, as the same is beyond the scope of jurisdiction.

2. We have heard Mr.Valluri Mohan Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Shashikiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority/respondent No.1 and Mr. D.Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

3. The relevant facts in brief are that one Mr. Lingamalla Yellaiah filed a petition under Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Karimnagar with a prayer to direct the Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited/petitioners to issue no objection certificate (for short, ‘NOC’) for the vehicle under loan. The Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 08.07.2009 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.6 of 2009 allowed the petition in part directing the petitioners herein to issue NOC in respect of the loan account of the respondent No.2 and to return the amount paid in excess and costs of Rs.5,000/- within a month, else liable for interest at 6% per annum.

4. The petitioners would contend that it is a non banking Financial Company extends financial assistance to its customers for purchasing the automobile vehicles. The respondent No.2 had availed loan of Rs.3,60,000/- to purchase Tata Sumo and agreed to repay the amount in 36 equal monthly instalments at Rs.12,250/- per month from 20.11.2003. However, for the defaults the respondent No.2 became liable to pay additional finance charges of Rs.44,063/- as per the agreement. Upon the notice for payment of the dues the respondent No.2 filed a petition before the Legal Services Authority. Nonetheless, the Lok Adalat without considering its jurisdiction adjudicated the petition ex parte, without hearing the parties particularly the petitioners. Thus the impugned award is legally unsustainable. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

5. In support of the pleadings, the petitioners cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & another v. Jalour Singh and others - AIR 2008 SC 1209.

6. In spite of due notice the respondent No.2 did not choose to appear.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that in the award of Permanent Lok Adalat it has been categorically mentioned that a notice has been served on the petitioners during the proceedings. However, as there was no representation the petitioners as respondents were set ex parte and basing on the materials the award has been passed. The Permanent Lok Adalat is