Arshad Ahmad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3585 Chatt

                                    1


                                                                       NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
               WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5022 OF 2021
      Arshad Ahmad, S/o Late I.A. Zanjani, aged about 54 years, R/o
House No.05, Sun City Colony, Subham Vihar, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                        ... Petitioner
                              versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Law and
Justice, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)
2.    Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur (C.G.)
through its Chairman.
3.    Chhattisgarh State Legal Service Authority (under the Administrative
Control of Chhattisgarh High Court). Through- Member Secretary, Vidhik
Seva Marg, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4.    Executive Engineer, Nagar Sambhag-2, Paschim CSPDCL, Nehru
Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
5.    Assistant Engineer, Nagar Sambhag-2, Paschim CSPDCL, Nehru
Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                         ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [09/12/2021]

1. The matter is today listed on the following defaults pointed out by

the Registry of this Court.

(i) The case is wrongly classified as Writ Petition (Civil) instead of Writ Petition (227).

(ii) The Respondents No.1 to 3 have been made additional party to the present Writ Petition.

2. So far as the Default No.1 is concerned, on due consideration the

same stands dismissed.

3. As regards the Default No.2, upon hearing the learned Counsel for

the Petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that Respondents No.1 to 3

have unnecessarily been made parties in the instant proceeding, as they

were neither the parties before the Court below nor is there any specific

relief sought for against them. Hence, the Default No.2 pointed out by the

Registry stands affirmed.

4. Though the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Sunil Kumar

Soni, was directed to delete the Respondents No.1 to 3 from the array of

parties in the present Writ Petition during the course of the day itself,

however, subsequently the learned Counsel for the Petitioner informed

the Court Officer that he does not want to carry out the aforesaid

correction/deletion. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the present Writ

Petition as it is.

5. Challenge in the present Writ Petition seems to be the Award dated

10.11.2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),

Bilaspur, in Case No.12/2019.

6. The only ground of challenge to the impugned Award is the

jurisdiction and competence in passing of the Award.

7. The ground raised by learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the

Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the full quorum while deciding the

dispute and therefore the impugned Award passed is void ab initio.

8. Learned Counsel for Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to

Section 22B of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 which provides for

the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and as per sub-section 2 of

Section 22B, every Permanent Lok Adalat shall consist of a Chairman and

two other persons with adequate experience. Learned Counsel for

Petitioner therefore submits that it is mandatorily required that when the

Permanent Lok Adalats are held, all the three Members should be present

while hearing the matter. That, in the absence of any of the Members, the

quorum would not be complete and the Forum would have thereby no

jurisdiction and competence to decide the matters.

9. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that, in the instant case, the

Forum had only two Members on the date of passing of the impugned

Award, as one of the permanent Members of the Forum had meanwhile

expired and the post was lying vacant. Therefore, in the light of the death

of one of the Members, the Lok Adalat itself cannot be held with the

remaining two Members.

10. It would be necessary at this juncture to take note of the fact that

the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 or, for that matter, the National

Legal Services Authority Rules so also the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other

Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and other Persons)

Rules, 2003 do nowhere disclose so far as the Forum for deciding the

matter, much less nowhere do it envisage a Clause or Rule which

prohibits the Lok Adalats to have a sitting without all the three Members

present.

11. On the contrary, if we look to sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the

Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of

Chairman and other Persons) Rules, 2003, it clearly reflects that in the

event of absence of the Chairman owing to any reason, be it - illness or

any other cause, the senior-most person of the Permanent Lok Adalat

shall be authorised to discharge the functions of the Chairman until the

day on which the Chairman resumes the charge of his functions. This, in

other words, means that in the event of absence of the Chairman for some

justifiable reasons, the functioning of the Lok Adalat would not get stalled

and the senior-most person would be authorised to proceed further and

continue with the functioning of the Lok Adalat including conducting of

regular sitting.

12. Moreover, Section 6 of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and

Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and other Persons) Rules, 2003

also prescribes for the procedure for conducting of inquiry. In the said

Rule also it does not reflect that in the event of absence of one of the

Members, the functioning of the Permanent Lok Adalat would get defunct

and that it mandatorily requires all the three Members of the Permanent

Lok Adalat to remain present for having a sitting.

13. If the analogy which the learned Counsel for Petitioner is trying to

canvass is to be accepted, the very functioning of the establishment of the

Permanent Lok Adalat and the very object and intention behind the

provisions of law would get defeated. The Petitioner in the present Writ

Petition except for the jurisdictional part has not questioned the impugned

Award on its merits.

14. This Court given the facts and circumstances of the case does not

find any strong case made out by the Petitioner calling for interference

with the impugned Award and the present Writ Petition thus being devoid

of merits the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

15. So far as the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for Petitioner

in support of his contentions are concerned, on due perusal of those

judgments it is clear that those judgments have been passed under the

entirely different factual backdrop and are nowhere touching the question

of Forum, particularly that of Permanent Lok Adalat is concerned.

Therefore, those judgments are distinguishable on their own facts itself.

16. Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                                     (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/                                                                  Judge