IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.446 of 2020

======================================================

1.

The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its

Managing Director, Bailey Road, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.

2.

The Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited,

Bailey Road Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.

3.

The Electrical Executive Engineer, New Capital PESU (W), South Bihar

Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna.

4.

The Assistant Electrical Executive Engineer, New Capital, PESU (W), South

Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Sunderi Devi Wife of Sri Nirmal Prasad, resident of North Mandiri, Near Kali

Mandir, New Capital, District Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Kumar Priya Ranjan (A S.C.) SBPDCL

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Priya Ranjan Prasad

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR

PANDEY

CAV ORDER

5

04-07-2022

I have already heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2019 passed

by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Case No.25/2019, the present

civil miscellaneous has been preferred by the petitioner South

Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited.

The brief fact of this case is that the respondent

Sunderi Devi filed a petition in Permanent Lok Adalat stating

therein that she is an electricity consumer. Her consumer No. is

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.446 of 2020(5) dt.04-07-2022

2/16

101345549 for 02 kilowatts. She is an old and infirm lady. Her

house was closed from June, 2016 to June, 2018. She informed

this fact to the Assistant Engineer, PESU, Sachivalaya on

12.02.2019. Despite the fact that her house was closed from

June, 2016 to June, 2018, the Electricity Department provided

her an electricity bill for Rs. 92173.04 in the month of June,

2018. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after taking into consideration

the fact that the Meter Reader has himself reported that the

premises was closed from the month of June, 2016 to June,

2018, vide impugned order, set off the late payment of Rs.

11129.86.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a

decision of this Court dated 03.11.2014 passed in Mostt. Bibi

Kitaban Nesha @ Bibi Kitabani vs. the State of Bihar and

others in C.W.J.C. No.13730 of 2010, has submitted that

Permanent Lok Adalats/Lok Adalats have got no jurisdiction to

entertain any suit or matter directly, unless it is referred by the

competent court or competent authority. He has also relied upon

an order of this Court passed in Surendra Singh and others vs.

Deo Muni Singh and others, dated 24.10.2012, in C.W.J.C. No.

13375 of 2011 and has submitted that the function of Lok

Adalats/Permanent Lok Adalats are conciliatory one and not

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.446 of 2020(5) dt.04-07-2022

3/16

adjudicatory. The Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat can pass

orders only on the basis of compromise entered between the

parties. He has submitted further that in the instant case, the

Permanent Lok Adalat overreached its jurisdiction and

undertaken the adjudicatory function.

The Lok Adalats are constituted under Section 19 of

the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Act’). Section 20 of the Act makes provision about the

cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats constituted under Section

19 of the Act. These provisions are being extracted herein

below:-

“19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every

State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme

Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court

Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be,

Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok

Ad