Shambhoo Nath v. The State Of Bihar

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. D. K. Jha, advocate Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, advocate For the Respondents : Mr. K.P. Gupta SC16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 2 27-07-2012 The office has raised an objection regarding maintainability of this appeal in view of law settled by a Division Bench of this court recently by order dated 03-05-2011 in LPA No. 138 of 2011 (Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh Vs. Upendra Sharma). In that case the issue was whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie where the power exercised by a learned Single Judge of this court is actually one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was held by the Division Bench that no appeal shall lie from a judgement or order passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of power of superintendence which was earlier under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act and is now available only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Labeling of a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India shall not be of any consequence if the power 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1095 of 2012 (2) dt.27-07-2012 exercised is available only under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In the present case dispute in a partition suit pending before the civil court was taken to Lok Adalat, Gaya and resulted in settlement by passing of an award with the consent of the parties. Subsequently, a challenge was made that the Lok Adalat could not have settled a dispute beyond the pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lacs because that was the limit for settlement of dispute by a permanent Lok Adalat constituted u/s 22 (C ) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Learned Single Judge found no merit in the aforesaid plea because a permanent Lok Adalat U/s 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is a special Lok Adalat only for Public Utility Services and although it has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to settle dispute by agreement of the parties, in case of non agreement it can settle the dispute by an order only when the value of the claim is up to Rs.

10 lacs. The Lok Adalat in the present case was not one for Public Utility Services and dispute was settled by agreement. In our view the power exercised by the learned Single Judge, in the facts of the case, was confined to exercise of power of superintendence to ensure that the lower courts and tribunals act within their jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the office objection regarding maintainability is found to be of substance. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) BKS/- (Vikash Jain, J)