Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2283 of 2013 ============================================== 1. Vishundeo Prasad Singh S/O Sri Laxmi Narayan Singh Resident Of Village + P.O. Kamla, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur Presently Residing At Mohalla Mphanpur Nears D.A.V. Junior Wing Campus, P.S. Mufassil, Town + District Samastipur. Versus 1. Ashish Kumar S/O Sri Sunil Prasad Singh Resident Of Mohalla Mohanpur Road, P.S. Mufassil, Town + District Samastipur. Respondent Ist set .... .... Petitioner/s 2. Sunil Prasad Singh S/O Sri Laxmi Narayan Singh Resident Of Bhagwanpur Kamla, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur, Presently Residing At Mohalla Kashipur Near Chandra Petrol Pump, Mohanpur Road, P.S. Mufassil, Town + District Samastipur. 3. Sri Laxmi Narayan Singh S/O Late Satyadeo Singh Resident Of Bhagwanpur Kamla, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur, Presently Residing At Mohalla Kashipur Near Chandra Petrol Pump, Mohanpur Road, P.S. Mufassil, Town + District Samastipur. 4. Anish Kumar S/O Sri Sunil Prasad Singh Resident Of Bhagwanpur Kamla, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur, Presently Residing At Mohalla Kashipur Near Chandra Petrol Pump, Mohanpur Road, P.S. Mufassil, Town + District Samastipur. Respondent 2nd set 5. Anil Prasad Singh S/O Sri Laxmi Narayan Singh Resident Of Bhagwanpur Kamla, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur, Presently Residing At Mohalla Kashipur Near Chandra Petrol Pump, Mohanpur Road, P.S. Mufassil, Town + District Samastipur. Respondent 3rd set .... .... Respondent/s ============================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar For the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4: Mr. Choudhary Shyam Advocate, and 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 2 / 14 Nandan ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 01-08-2013 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questions the validity of the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat”, Samastipur ( as described on the top of the order-sheet in case No. P.L.A. No. 52 of 2012), whereby and whereunder the said so-called “Permanent Lok Adalat” accepted a compromise petition filed by Respondent no.1 first set and respondents second set and prepared consequential award.
Legal Reasoning
2. I have heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents at length. 3. Facts of the case are not much in dispute. A partition case, numbered as Partition Case no. 52 of 2012, was filed by Ashish Kumar, respondent first set impleading respondents second set i.e. Sunil Prasad Singh, Laxmi Narayan Singh and Anish Kumar as parties to the said case. The case was filed directely to the “Permanent Lok Adalat” on 14.3.2012. On 30.3.2012 all the parties to the said case filed separate but 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 3 / 14 identical affidavits to the effect that the parties had entered into a compromise. The said “Permanent Lok Adalat”, Samastipur on the same date i.e. 30.3.2012 accepted the compromise petition and, accordingly, award was prepared on the same day i.e. 30.3.2012 by so called “Permanent Lok Adalat”. The order sheet of “Permanent Lok Adalat” has been annexed as Annexure-3 to this application which contains proceedings of four dates. 14.3.2012 is the date of filing of the case and its registration. On 15.3.2012, the said “Permanent Lok Adalat” ordered for issuance of notice to the respondents under Section 22 (3) (a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ( hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟). On 27.3.2012 the applicant did not appear. The matter was adjourned to 30.3.2012. On 30.3.2012, as has been indicated above, the parties filed their compromise petition which was accepted on the same day and award was prepared on that basis. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a coparcener of the same joint family and was not impleaded a party in the said case. The contention is that the parties to the said partition case came in collusion with each other and by committing fraud obtained the award by “Permanent Lok Adalat”. The petitioner learnt about the award only after the respondent first set obtained an order of mutation on the strength 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 4 / 14 of such award in Mutation Case No. 557 of 2012-13. He has filed an appeal before the D.C.L.R, Samastipur challenging the mutation order passed by the Circle Officer, Jitwarpur which is solely based on the award passed by the said “Permanent Lok Adalat”, Samastipur which according to the petitioner has been obtained fraudulently. 5. That the petitioner is one of the sons of Laxmi Narain Singh is not in dispute. Respondent first set, Ashish Kumar, who filed the partition case before “Permanent Lok Adalat”, is the grandson of the said Laxmi Narain Singh and son of Sunil Prasad Singh. He impleaded Laxminarain Singh, his father Sunil Prasad Singh,( Respondent no.2) and Anish Kumar (Respondent No.4) another son of said Sunil Prasad Singh as parties to the said Partition case No. 52 of 2012 before the said “Permanent Lok Adalat”. Respondent first set and Respondents second set are parties to the said partition case. Two other sons of said Laxmi Narayan Singh i.e. the petitioner and Respondent 3rd set were not impleaded party in said partition case. 6. In the background of these facts which are not in dispute, Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned senior Counsel has submitted that a “Permanent Lok Adalat” cannot have a jurisdiction to entertain any matter beyond the purpose for which 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 5 / 14 a “Permanent Lok Adalat” is established in terms of Section 22 B of the Act. He submits that Chapter VI -A of the Act deals with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement by “Permanent Lok Adalat”. Section 22-B of the Act provides that a “Permanent Lok Adalat” can be established by notification by the Authority under the Act for “exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services”. He submits that „public utility services‟ has been defined under Section 22-A (b) of the Act which includes 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. He submits that the said “Permanent Lok Adalat” could not have taken cognizance of a dispute between the parties as regards partition in a joint Hindu family. He submits that cognizance of such case by “Permanent Lok Adalat” under Section 22-C of the Act is absolutely beyond jurisdiction and the award so- prepared by “Permanent Lok Adalat” is for this reason a nullity and all actions based on such award cannot have any legal effect. He further submits that the award was obtained by the contesting respondents by playing fraud upon the legal 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 6 / 14 process. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in ( 2011) 7 SCC 463 (Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Vs. Satchidanand) with a particular reference to paragraphs 32 and 33. In response to a preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent first set and respondents second set that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the award, not being a party in the partition case before the “Permanent Lok Adalat”, Mr. Shahi, learned senior Counsel has submitted that it being an apparent result of fraud played by the respondent first set and respondents second set, such award could be challenged by any person having interest in the property in question before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209 ( State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others). 7. Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent first set and respondents second set has empathetically submitted that not being a party to the case before the “Permanent Lok Adalat”, the petitioner could not have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the award. He submits that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the award he 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 7 / 14 could have challenged it by filing a separate suit against his father respondent no.3, Laxmi Narayan Singh. He further submits, with reference to Section 22-E of the Act that award of “Permanent Lok Adalat” is final and binding cannot be called in question in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioner being not a party to the said partition case was at liberty to take the plea that the award was not binding upon him. He, accordingly, submits that the award does not require interference by this Court. 8. In my opinion, the present case involves a very short point to be decided i.e. as to whether the said “Permanent Lok Adalat”, Samastipur had the jurisdiction to entertain a partition case filed by respondent first set and the cognizance of such dispute taken by the said “Permanent Lok Adalat” is beyond jurisdiction; and the “Permanent Lok Adalat” does not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of such dispute, whether award passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat” is a nullity and any action based on such award is also a nullity in the eye of law. 9. Section 22-A (a) of the Act defines “Permanent Lok Adalat” as follows:- “22-A(a) “Permanent Lok Adalat” means Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub- a section(1) of Section 22-B;” 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 8 / 14 10. Section 22-B of the Act deals with establishment of “Permanent Lok Adalat” for the purposes mentioned in the provision and reads as follows:- “22-B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in 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 ndotification. (2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section(1) shall consist of- (a) a person who is, or has been, a District Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a District Judge, shall be the Chairman of Permanent Lok Adalat; and (b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 11. Evidently, “Permanent Lok Adalats” are established for exercising jurisdiction in respect of public utility services. Public utility service has been defined under Section 22- A (b) of the Act as follows:- “22-A(b) “Permanent Lok Adalat” means any (i) transport service the carriage of for passengers or goods by air, road or water; or 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 9 / 14 (ii) (iii) postal, telegraph dor telephone service; or supply of power, light or water to the public or (iv) (v) (vi) and by any establishment; or system of public conservancy or sanitation; service in hospital or dispensary; or insurance service, includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in the public interest by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.” 12. Section 22-C of the Act confers power upon Lok Adalat to take cognizance of a pre litigation dispute. Evidently, cognizance can be taken with respect to matters enumerated in Section 22-A(b) of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, a civil dispute between the parties other than those referred to in Section 22-A(b) of the Act can be entertained by a “Permanent Lok Adalat.” Any exercise of jurisdiction by a “Permanent Lok Adalat” with respect to any dispute relating to matters other than those mentioned in Section 22-A(b) would be wholly beyond jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, I hold that the award passed by such “Permanent Lok Adalat” on a petition filed by respondent no.3/ respondent no.1, seeking partition, being absolutely beyond jurisdiction, is a nullity in the eye of law and cannot be given effect to for any purpose whatsoever. Any action based on such 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 10 / 14 award is also a nullity. 14. I over-rule the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to question the validity of award in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; firstly for the reason that it is not in dispute that petitioner is a coparcener of the Hindu joint family, partition with respect to which was sought in the Partition Case No. 52 of 2012 before the “Permanent Lok Adalat”. The maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an award obtained by a “Permanent Lok Adalat” or “Lok Adalat” has been decided by Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209 (State of Punjab vs. Jalour singh ( supra), paragraph 12 of which reads as follows:- “12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties ( which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 11 / 14 a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 15. This order has been passed on the basis of plea taken by the respective parties that the award was passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat”. From the impugned order it appears that said “Permanent Lok Adalat” exercised its jurisdiction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit certain documents to demonstrate that said “Permanent Lok Adalat” was in fact constituted in accordance with Section 22-B of the Act and, accordingly, it exercised its jurisdiction. I have not gone into the question as regards establishment of a “Permanent Lok Adalat” at Samastipur. 16. However, before I part with I must observe on the basis of my past experience that in so many districts of the State of Bihar disputes are being entertained by bodies in the name of “Permanent Lok Adalat” irrespective of the fact whether such disputes relate to one of the public utility service as defined in Section 22-A (b) of the Act. A “Permanent Lok Adalat” if it exists on establishment under Section 22-B of the Act can entertain a pre-litigation dispute for reconciliation, 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 12 / 14 settlement and even adjudication if such disputes relate to one of the public utility service as indicated above and not otherwise. To exercise jurisdiction under Chapter VI-A of the Act a “Permanent Lok Adalat” is required to be established by the said authority within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Act. No forum other than the one established by the authority under Section 22-B of the Act can exercise jurisdiction of a “Permanent Lok Adalat”. Pre-litigation matters only can be entertained by a “Permanent Lok Adalat” so-established and no Court can make reference to such “Permanent Lok Adalat” any dispute for settlement, conciliation or adjudication in a matter pending before such Court. 17. These observations I have been made having taken judicial notice of the fact that there prevails confusion amongst the Courts, lawyer and the litigants as regards jurisdiction of Lok Adalat and “Permanent Lok Adalat” and also the manner in which a dispute can be referred or taken to a Lok Adalat or a “Permanent Lok Adalat”. 18. Sometimes a continuous Lok Adalats are being misunderstood with “Permanent Lok Adalat”. This aspect has been dealt with by Supreme Court in case of Interglobe Aviation Ltd Vs. N. Satchidanand reported in ( 2011) 7 SCC 463, 13 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 13 / 14 paragraphs 32 and 33 of which read as follows:- “32. We may also at this juncture refer to the confusion caused on account of the term Permanent Lok Adalat being used to describe two different types of Lok Adalats. The LSA Act refers to two types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act which has no adjudicatory functions or powers and which The discharges purely conciliatory functions. second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22-B (1) of the LSA Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions. The expression“Permanent Lok Adalat” should refer only to Permanent Lok Adalats established under Section 22-B (1) of the LSA Act and not to the Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19. However, in many States, when Lok Adalats are constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act for regular or continuous sittings ( as contrasted from they are also called as periodical sittings), Permanent Lok Adalats even though they do not have adjudicatory functions. 33. In LIC V. Suresh Kumar 2 this Court observed: “ It is needless to state that Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis, as such, between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at an agreed settlement between the parties has failed.” The said decision refers to such a “Permanent Lok Adalat” organized under Section 19 of the Act and should not be confused with Permanent Lok Adalats constituted under Section 22-B (1) of the Act. To avoid confusion, the State Legal Services Authorities and the High Courts may ensure that Lok Adalats other than the Permanent Lok Adalats established under Section 22-B(1) of the Act in regard to public utility services, are not described as Permanent Lok Adalats. One way of avoiding the confusion is to refer to the Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 of the Act on a regular or permanent basis as “ Continuous Lok Adalats”. 14 Patna High Court CWJC No.2283 of 2013 (6) dt.01-08-2013 14 / 14 19. It is desirable, therefore, that Bihar State Legal Services Authority takes such steps, as to drive away such misunderstanding from the minds of the Courts, lawyers and the litigants and a continuous Lok Adalat is not to be confused with“Permanent Lok Adalat”. These observations are being made as I have noticed perceptible degree of misconception prevailing in this regard. 20. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.3.2012 passed by “Permanent Lok Adalat” and award prepared on such basis is declared as illegal, unauthorized, beyond jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. Any action solely based on the order or award would also be a null and void in the eye of law. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Arun Kumar/-