Execution Case No. 2 of 2011 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7825 of 2012 ====================================================== Smt.Kanti Devi, wife of Sri Dasarath Sah, resident of Mohalla-Bakarganj, P.S. Laheriyasarai, District-Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Mandal son Late Surya Narayan Mandal. 2. Pramod Kumar Mandal, son of Late Surya Narayan Mandal. Both are residents of Mohalla- Bakarganj, P.S. Laheriyasarai, District-Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh For the Respondent/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 17-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, 1st, Darbhanga, in Title Execution Case No. 2 of 2011, by which he has dismissed the execution case filed for executing the award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Darbhanga; (hereinafter referred to as „Permanent Lok Adalat‟) in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. As per pleadings in the writ application, the petitioner and the respondents entered into an agreement for sale of the land in dispute on 20.12.2000 and when the respondents failed to fulfill their promise, the petitioner filed the title suit No. 36 of 2005 before “Permanent Lok Adalat”. Notices are said to have been
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 2/8 issued. Before the date when the parties were required to appear before the “Permanent Lok Adalat” after notice, a compromise between the parties is said to have taken place and joint compromise petition was filed before the “Permanent Lok Adalat” on 02.08.2005. On the basis of such compromise, an award is said to have been prepared on 01.11.2006 by “Permanent Lok Adalat, Darbhanga”, (Annexure-1). Thereafter, it is the petitioner‟s case, that respondents refused to execute the sale deed in terms of the award, whereupon the petitioner filed a disposal case before the “Permanent Lok Adalat” on 13.08.2010 for execution and enforcement of the award made by it. Thereafter, on a request made to “Permanent Lok Adalat, Darbhanga”, to refer the matter to competent Civil Court for proper adjudication of the case, the “Permanent Lok Adalat, Darbhanga”, by its order dated 08.05.2012 sent the records to the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge-1st, Darbhanga and was numbered as Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2011. The execution case was heard on 01.02.2012 and was dismissed on the ground that the award of “Permanent Lok Adalat” was made on a joint compromise petition filed before it in Title Suit No. 36 of 2005, wherein the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed and parties were required to file a separate suit for specific performance of contract for the relief sought in the execution case. Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 3/8
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court below, i.e. Sub-ordinate Judge-1st Darbhanga, wrongly dismissed the execution case without realizing the effect of Section 21 and 22-B of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (Hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟). He submits on such basis that every award made by the “Lok Adalat” or “Permanent Lok Adalat” is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and binding on all the parties to the dispute and further that such award was not appealable before any Court. 5. I consider it proper in the present case to briefly deal with the statutory provisions as regards power, functions and jurisdiction of “Lok Adalat” and “Permanent Lok Adalat” as envisaged under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, as I am of the view that forum of “Permanent Lok Adalat” in the present case has been misused in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Section 89 of the C.P.C. casts a duty upon the Court in a matter pending before it to consider referring the dispute pending before it to either of the four alternative dispute resolution mechanism, namely, Arbitration, Conciliation, Judicial settlement (including settlement through Lok Adalat), and mediation; when it feels that there exists elements of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties. 7. Apparently, this provision deals with the cases which are Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 4/8 pending before the Court and are fit to be referred to one of the additional disputes resolution mechanism. It does not deal with or prescribes procedures in matters which are not pending before any Court. Secondly, this Section does not deal with “Permanent Lok Adalat” and deals with “Lok Adalat” only. 8. The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) was enacted, mainly for the purpose of providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the Society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize “Lok Adalats” to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. Lok Adalat is defined in Section 2(d) as Lok Adalat organized under Chapter VI of the Act. Chapter VI of the Act deals with the organization of Lok Adalats, the procedure before Lok Adalat and the cognizance of cases by Lok Adalat. A Lok Adalat can deal with the matter referred to it by a Court under Section 20(1) of the Act. Section 20(1) thus deals with post litigation cases. A Lok Adalt can also entertain a „pre-litigation‟ dispute referred by authority or committee under the Act organizing the Lok Adalat under Section 20(2) of the Act. Lok Adalat thus can entertain pre-litigation as well as post litigation pending dispute. Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 5/8 9. The concept of permanent Lok Adalat came with an amendment introduced in the year 2002. The statements of objects and reasons in the said Amendment Act 37 of 2002 read as follows:- “2. However, the major drawback in the existing scheme of organisation of the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the said Act is that the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on compromise or settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the Court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a Court of law. This causes unnecessary delay in the dispensation of justice. If Lok Adalats are given power to decide the cases on merits in case parties fails to arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem can be tackled to a great extent. Further, the case which arise in relation to public utility services such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Vidyut Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself which would result in reducing the workload of the regular Courts to a great extent. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to set up Permanent Lok Adalats for for providing conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility services.” pre-litigative mechanism compulsory 10. Accordingly, Chapter VIA was added vide Amendment Act, 37 of 2002, which exclusively with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. Section 22-A(a) defines Permanent Lok Adalat. A Permanent Lok Adalat is established under sub-section (1) of Section 22-B of the Act. Section 22-B(1) reads thus:- “22-B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification.” Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 6/8 11. From bare reading of Section 22-B, it will appear that a “Permanent Lok Adalat” is to be established for exercising jurisdiction in respect of one or more “Public Utility Services”. 12. „Public Utility Service‟ has been defined under Section 22-A(b) as follows:- “(b) “public utility service” means any- (i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or postal, telegraph or telephone service; or supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or system of public conservancy or sanitation; or service in hospital or dispensary; or insurance service, (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.” 13. In the present case, the petitioner went to the “Permanent Lok Adalat” with a grievance that in spite of there being a Mahada (agreement for sale), executed by the respondent, the sale deed was not being executed by him. As per the petitioner‟s own case, the moment notices were issued by the “Permanent Lok Adalat”, before the next date for hearing before the “Permanent Lok Adalat”, a compromise was entered into and it was filed before the “Permanent Lok Adalat”. On such basis “Permanent Lok Adalat” passed an award and thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner it became a decree, binding on the parties not appealable before any Court. In such view of the Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 7/8 matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was obligatory upon the executing Court to execute such award. 14. Apparently, in view of the statutory provisions as have been quoted hereinabove, the “Permanent Lok Adalat” did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner before it as the dispute did not relate to one of the Public Utility Services defined and enumerated in Section 22A(b) of the Act. It seems that “Permanent Lok Adalat” was approached only for having a seal of award as there appeared no element of dispute. The proceeding before the “Permanent Lok Adalat” prima facie appears to be collusive. It is shocking that “Permanent Lok Adalat” though being chaired by persons having sufficient knowledge and expertise in the field, entertained the petition without having any jurisdiction in the matter or dispute, which was before the “Permanent Lok Adalat”. 15. I find that parties to the suit before the Permanent Lok Adalat grossly abused and misused the process of law by approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat and subsequently by filing an application before the executing Court to execute the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Execution Court rightly dismissed the execution case and the impugned order doesn‟t require interference by this Court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Patna High Court CWJC No.7825 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 8/8 16. In such view of the matter, this application is dismissed with a cost of rupees five thousand to be deposited in the account of Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna, within a period of three months from today. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Saif/-