The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4068 of 2018 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner-Cum- Chairman, District Water and Sanitation Mission, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. -Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum. 2. The Executive Engineer-Cum-Member Secretary, District Water and Sanitation Department, P.O. & P.S.- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. 3. The Block Development Officer, Dhalbhumgarh, P.O. & P.S. – Dhalbhumgarh, District- East Singhbhum. 4. The Block Development Officer, Patamda, P.O. & P.S.- Patamda, District- East Singhbhum. 5. The Junior Engineer-Cum-Member Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Prasakha, P.O. & P.S.- Dhalbhumgarh, District- East Singhbhum. … …. Versus 1. Parth Kumar Dey, Son of Nibaran Dey, Proprietor Bablu Enterprises, having its office at Kashida, P.O. - Ghatsila, P.S. – Ghatsila, District- East Singhbhum, resident of Village _ Kashida, P.O. – Ghatsila, P.S. – Ghatsila, District- East Singhbhum. Petitioners 2. Harish Chandra Mahto, Son of Sri Bipin Chandra Mahto, Proprietor Nirmay Production Centre, having its office at Village Kuchiasholi, P.O. Balibandh, P.S. _ Chakulia, District- East Singhbhum.
Legal Reasoning
3. Gurubari Handa, Wife of Sri Bijendra Hansda, Proprietor Hansda Production Centre having its office at Kishoreipur, P.O. – Simdi, P.S. – Chakulia, District- East Singhbhum. 4. Avijit Kundu, Son of Late Anil Kumar Kundu, Proprietor Rural Production Centre, having its office at Village + P.O. - Madhabpur, P.S. – Patamda, District – East Singhbhum. … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I. : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate. Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate. Page 1 of 6 Order No. 25/Dated: 13th August, 2024 --------- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Heard Mr. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This writ application is directed against award dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 56 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been directed to make payment to each of the respondents to the tune of Rs.18,47,800/-, Rs.14,03,200/-, Rs.9,66,000/- and Rs.10,18,600/- respectively. It has been submitted by Mrs. Mishra, learned counsel
Decision
appearing for the writ petitioners that the terms of Reference did not permit payment of interest to the respondents. It has been submitted that there is no provision under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for awarding interest to the claimant. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Reference, which also specifies according to her, that only the dues, which are to be paid to the respondents, would have to be calculated and paid sans any interest. 6. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Legal Services Authorities Page 2 of 6 Act, 1987 do not bar payment of interest and he has referred to Section 22 (D) of the said Act to buttress his submission that the Permanent Lok Adalat had rightly awarded interest @ 6% to the respondents. 7. It appears that the respondents herein were awarded the work of construction of super structure toilets. However since the payments were not made, a writ application was preferred by the respondents and subsequent thereto, Contempt (Civil) Case No. 866 of 2014 and Civil Review No. 41 of 2015 were filed and the dispute in question was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat on the following terms:- “To quantify the legally payable amount to the petitioners against the actual construction of super structure toilets, as per work order, on the basis of materials placed before the writ- court and in the present proceeding”. 8. An award was passed on 17.03.2018, wherein the petitioners were directed to make payment of Rs.18,47,800/-, Rs.14,03,200/-, Rs.9,66,000/- and Rs.10,18,600/- to the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4, respectively within 60 days from the date of order falling which they will have to pay simple interest rate @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of default of the order till date of payment. Page 3 of 6 9. At the initial stage, it was submitted by Mrs. Mishra, learned AAG-I that no efforts for conciliation were made by the Permanent Lok Adalat and subsequently, ongoing through the trial court records, which had been called for by this Court, it was concluded the indeed efforts for conciliation were made and therefore, she had confined her prayer only with respect to the interest. This would appear from the order passed by us on 07.08.2024. 10. So far as the award of interest @ 6% on the amount in question is concerned, it is apparent that on failure on the part of the petitioners to make payment of the awarded amount within a period of 60 days from the date of the award, the same would trigger payment of interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 11. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-State did not take any efforts to satisfy the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 17.03.2018 and this writ application has been preferred challenging the Award in its totality though, it has been subsequently confined only with respect to the interest, which has been awarded to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 12. At this juncture, we may refer to Section 22 (D) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which needs as under:- Page 4 of 6 “22D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.— The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).” 13. Though, the Reference does not in specific terms relate to payment of interest in case the plea of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 was found to be correct, but at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the terms of Reference included the words “To quantify the legal payable amount” which would signify that payment of interest, if the Permanent Lok Adalat thought it fit could be awarded in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Even otherwise, Section 22 (D) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which has been quoted above further reveals that in deciding the dispute on merits, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice and this would therefore also include interest upon the awarded amount. Page 5 of 6 14. We, therefore, on the basis of discussion, made hereinabove, do not feel inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A. Case No. 56 of 2017. Consequently, this writ application stands dismissed. 15. Pending I.A. No. 5652 of 2021 stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Sunil-Simran/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Page 6 of 6