The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27120 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). State Bank of India, Keonjhar Branch …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Gobardhan Das and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Akhyaya Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Adv. Along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-17.05.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -31.07.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, through this Writ Petition, seeks to contest the Award dated 25.04.2023, issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in PLA Case No.303 of 2020. The primary grievance is that the Permanent Lok Adalat, operating under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, lacks the jurisdiction as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Public Utility Service and has exceeded its conferred authority. Additionally, the petitioner challenges the Award on the grounds of Page 1 of 12
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 illegality, disproportionality, arbitrariness, lack of supporting evidence, and non-compliance with the principles of equity. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief fact of the case is that: (i) The Opp. party no. 1, who was working as an employee in State Bank of India, had availed a house building loan from SBI, Keonjhar Branch on under loan A/c No. 11382980093. This loan was sanctioned on 17.04.1999, after due production of requisite original documents including original R.O.R, original Sale Deed of the land, Encumbrance Certificate, Rent receipts etc. (ii) Since he was about to retire, the Opp. Party No.1 paid the remaining balance of Rs.74,132 on 09.08.2019, to close the loan account. Consequently, the loan account was closed. The O.P. No.1 submitted an application vide letter dated 19.07.2019 to the Petitioner Bank requesting the return of the original documents that were deposited during the loan application process. (iii) In response to the Application, the O.P. No.1 received a letter bearing No.29/19 from the Petitioner-Bank where it has been stated that the Loan file was misplaced in the Branch and the same would be returned back within 15 days. (iv) While the matter stood thus, the O.P No.1 applied for a fresh Loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to extend the Residential Building however the subsequent loan application was not taken into consideration due to the submission of certified documents instead of the originals; certified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 Page 2 of 12 copy was submitted because the Bank itself was in custody of the originals. (v) The O.P No.1 sent another representation 13.09.2019to the Petitioner- Bank urging the petitioner to return the original documents as these documents are crucial for verifying property ownership and existing liabilities (vi) The O.P. No. 1 issued a Pleader Notice to the then Branch Manager and O.P.No.3 but his grievance was not addressed to. As a result, he approached the Respondent no.4, the then Banking Ombudsman by presenting a complaint on 21.11.2019 which was rejected. (vii) The O.P. No. 1 thereafter approached the Chief Manager of SBI Head office at Bhubaneswar on 23.3.2020but the Chief Manager did not respond to the application given by the O.P.No.1. As a result, O.P.No.1 approached the permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Keonjhar in PLA Case No.303 of 2020 and prayed for the return of his original documents. (viii) The Permanent Lok Adalat passed an Award in the P.L.A Case No. 303/2020 with the following directions: a. to return all original documents within a period of one month; failing which to pay Rs.1 Lakh towards compensation for loss to the present Deponent b. Direction to pay Rs.2 Lakh to the present Deponent for causing deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony. c. Rs.10,000 towards litigation expenses. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 Page 3 of 12 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) Either at the time of closure of the Account or thereafter the loanee/ the loan account holder is given with a (no due certificate). It is pertinent to mention here that the opp. party no. 1 neither has claimed that no due certificate or obtained that certificate from the Bank has neither been mentioned in his petition nor his application to issue such certificate is mentioned nowhere in his petition. (ii) The main grievance of Opp. Party No. 1 is not for refund of original documents but for non-sanction of extension of residential building i.e. Rs.15 lakhs which is tale telling from the letter dated 13.9.2019. Moreover the averments in the said letter disclose that the Municipality has given him original building plan and he had obtained other documents as required for sanction of loan. (iii) On 30.5.2020, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Opp. party no. 1 regarding a reply to all his queries regarding his loan as well as the documents non-refund. In this context, the petitioner intimated him that not only has he taken house building loan but he has also taken personal loan. That personal loan is also secured by extension of the same property. And in the context of refund of document the O.P.No.1
Legal Reasoning
approach RACC official i.e. one Bank official Mr. Dushmanta Jena for delivery of his land documents and in spite of promise made by the petitioner to refund the documents within 15 days. The Branch Manager intimated him, they will obtain the certified copy of the sale deed at the Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 cost of the Bank. Knowing it very well, the O.P.No.1 approach the authorities showing his grievance which is mainly on non-sanction of extension of loan, which the Branch Manager clarified that they have not refused to sanction the loan at any point of time which can be evidenced from the letter dated 30.05.2020. (iv) There was no intention and motive to withhold the documents and cancel the documents which has no use of the Bank after the closure of the loan account. Moreover, he has also stated that he has never denied the complainant or sanction of loan i.e. additional loan. (v) All the issues have been caused by the Opposite Party. At the time of closure of the loan account, the Opposite Party, who was employed by the Bank at that time, had access to his documents filed within the Bank. The Opp. Party No.1, possibly in collusion with other staff members, might have removed his original documents without the knowledge of the Branch Manager. (vi) Although all relevant facts were presented to the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Adalat did not adequately address the core grievance or assess the Bank’s responsibility. The issue, which could have been resolved by providing a certified copy of the registered Sale Deed, was not thoroughly examined. Instead, the Lok Adalat issued an Award against Respondent No.2, directing the return of all original documents mentioned in the petition, including sale deeds and other relevant documents deposited in the Bank 22 years prior, within one month. Failure to comply would result in a compensation payment of Rs.1 lakh for the loss. Additionally, the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, and mental agony, along with Rs.10,000 in costs. All directives are to be complied with within two months, with the applicant granted the liberty to enforce the Award in the appropriate forum. (vii) The compensations awarded in three separate instances are excessive and disproportionate to the alleged negligence. Additionally, the Bank has not been found at fault for the non-sanction of the additional loan, and despite repeated requests from the Bank for the return of documents, the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to properly consider these factors. Therefore, the order issued by the Lok Adalat is subject to being set aside and is liable to be reviewed by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The impugned award is very much within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat and in no way disproportionate. (ii) The Bank has admitted that it had retained the Regd. Sale Deed for the purpose of sanctioning a loan. The Bank has unnecessarily raised the issue of “No Due Certificate” when admittedly the Loan had been paid off and the account had been closed. This clearly shows that the Present litigation has been filed on irrelevant grounds. (iii) The petitioner in order to avoid its liability, taking the plea that the OP No. 1 has approached the P.L.A more for the loan than the document. Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 But the said fact is false as the OP No. 1 on 18.10.2019 had intimated the Bank that he does not want any Loan and wants the return of the original title deeds. The Bank is only trying to hide its deficiency of service and negligence on a false ground that the entire action has been initiated only because the second loan was denied. Admittedly, the Bank had taken the original title deeds and it is duty bound to return the same after- due closure of the account. It can give no excuse to retain the same. (iv) The Bank was duty-bound to return the original documents without any delay. At no point of time, it had ever accused the O.P. No.l of any wrongdoing. At no point of time it has ever taken any action against O.P. No.1 for any wrong doing vis-a-vis the original documents. Only in order to fight this litigation, the Bank has made this allegation that the Deponent must have taken away the original documents while he was the employee. It is pertinent to note that it has taken no action against any office staff members on the basis of such suspicion. Thus, the Bank is merely taking frivolous grounds to debar the Opp. party from the benefit of the Award. (v) Certified copies can never take the place of original documents. A certified copy is not the original document. But it is a copy of the registration entry only. Lack of title deeds is a defect in the title of a person, especially if he wants to create any charge or interest over the property. Thus, in that view of the matter the Bank cannot take the plea that mere procurement of a certified copy would be a due discharge of duty and answer to negligence. The bank all alone in the Writ Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 Application has admitted that there has been a loss of the documents from the custody of the Bank. Therefore, there is no lack of evidence. The award is not disproportionate at all because the Bank was, in fact, ready to grant a Rs.15,00,000/- Loan against the property. (vi) Loss of title deeds causes mental agony as it is a very important document not only for the lonee, but also his legal heirs for all times to come, and, further, the OP No. 1 till date has not received the original title deeds. The Deponent has been running around for the last 4 years which has caused him intense distress. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. 8. I have heard the representations of the counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the materials placed on record. It is lamentable and troubling that the petition, which commenced with a critical issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, ultimately failed to present any arguments regarding this issue in the Petition. Nonetheless, this Court, however, will attempt to answer the question. Permanent Lok Adalat, established under Section 22-B(1)of the LSA Act in respect of public utility services and carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions, subject to the procedure to be followed under Section 22-Cof the LSA Act. Section 22-C of the LSA Act provides that a party to a dispute, prior to bringing a dispute before the court, i.e., at the pre-litigation stage, can make an application to a Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Aug-2024 11:18:49 Page 8 of 12 dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalat would first conduct conciliation proceedings and attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. However, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, it shall decide the dispute, as long as the dispute does not relate to an offence. Section22-D further indicates that the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits.1 9. In Bar Council of India v. Union of India,2 the Supreme Court held that the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate disputes at a pre- litigation stage in terms of Section 22-C(8) is constitutional. This Court observed thus: “26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent LokAdalats only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the parties are required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public utility services, Parliament has intervened and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat.”