Allahabad High Court
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam ... vs Presiding Officer Permanent Lok ... on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40467 of 2022
Petitioner :- Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- Vineet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, at the outset, submits that Permanent Lok Adalat does not initiate any attempt to conduct conciliation proceedings in terms of Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
2. Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel Respondent-2, submits that since petitioner (Respondent before Permanent Lok Adalat) has not appeared despite notice, therefore, there was no illegality in deciding matter on merit as conciliation was not possible.
3. Issue in this regard has been dealt in detail by this Court in Writ-C No. 28999 of 2013 (Nitin Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, deiced on 16.12.2021, wherein the question framed by this Court and thereafter Court?s observation in para (Chha) and (Ja) are reproduced as under:
"????? ???? ????????? ??????? 1987 ?? ?????? 6? (?????? ????? ???? ?? ??????) ?? ???? 22 ? ? ?????? (1) ?? (7) ?? ??????? '?????? ??? ?????' ?????? '????????? ???? ????????????? ?? ?????? ?? '????????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? '????? ?? ????????? (?????? (8)) ???? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ??? ? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ????????? '?????' ???????? ?? ????????
?(?) ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? 22 ? ?? ?????? 3 ? 4 ??? ?????? ??, ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???, ????????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????, ???? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?????, ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? (8) ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???, ?? ??? ??? ??, ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? (??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??)? ?????? (8) ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? (3), (4), (5) ? (6) ??? ???? ??? ?????? ? ?????? (7) ??? ?????? ?? ? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??, ????? ??? ?????, ?????? (8) ?? ???????? ???-??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ??????, ????????? ??? ?? ???, ?????? ????? ???? ???????
(?) ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??, ????? ??? ?????, ?? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ???????????, ????? ? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????????? ?? ?????? (??????? ???) ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????, ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????, ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???, ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? '?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???"
4. The above position of law has recently been reiterated by Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama (2022) 7 SCC 776 and in para 44 Court held as under:
?44. At the same time, the Division Bench in its impugned judgement also noted that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in the present case. This observation is correct since the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat does not indicate any attempt made by it to propose terms of settlement to the parties and their rejection. It states that once the respondent and his guarantor did not appear, it adjudicated the dispute on merits in favour of the respondent. For the reasons mentioned earlier in this judgment, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have done so. Therefore, on this point only, we uphold the final judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the award dated 19 November 2014 of the Permanent Lok Adalat.?
5. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.05.2022 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to Permanent Lok Adalat to pass fresh order in terms of judgments passe by this Court in Nitin Kumar (supra) and Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra), preferably within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023
AK
