Ghulam Nabi Khawja & Anr vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 336 j&K/2

                                                                                    Serial No. 136
                                                                                   Supplementary-1

                               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                         AT SRINAGAR


                                                                 Dated: 22nd of March, 2021.


                                                                          WP(C) No.506/2021
                                                                           CM No.1549/2021

           Ghulam Nabi Khawja & Anr.

                                                                              ... Petitioner(s)
                                                 Through: -
                                       Mr Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate.

                                                      V/s

           Union Territory of JK & Ors.
                                                                            ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

(Oral);

01. By medium of the instant petition, the petitioners have assailed

the validity of order dated 6th of March, 2021 passed by the Lok Adalat (Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Handwara) in case titled 'Inhabitants of Ashpora v.

ARTO, Kupwara', whereby and whereunder the controversy between the

parties therein stands settled by way of a compromise.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the providing

of transport facility to the inhabitants of the Village is a policy decision of the

Government and that the Lok Adalat cannot insist for a particular management

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2021.03.24 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

WP(C) No.506/2021;

CM No.1549/2021

in that behalf, unless some sufficient cause for doing the same is clearly

projected before the Court. It is contended that the parties to the lis were called

to appear in person and a consensus order was passed without looking at the

controversy raised in the matter.

03. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the

pleadings on record and considered the matter.

04. Perusal of the order impugned, as passed by the Lok Adalat,

reveals that the same has been passed only after a consensus was arrived at

between the parties so that the issue involved is set at naught once for all. The

grievance projected by the applicants therein was redressed by the said

consensus order passed by the Lok Adalat and both the parties were satisfied

with the course of action adopted in the proceedings in the Lok Adalat. The

grievance of the petitioners, who claim to be the Sarpanch and Deputy

Sarpanch of the area concerned, respectively, is that the order passed by the

Lok Adalat has resulted in hardships being faced by the inhabitants of the area

on account of lack of availability of transport facilities. The inhabitants of the

area were already before the Lok Adalat and it is with their consensus that the

order impugned was passed, so the petitioners, who, even otherwise, have no

locus standi in the matter, are precluded to challenge the order impugned.

05. True it is that the only remedy available with the aggrieved

person for challenging the award of the Lok Adalat is filing a Writ petition

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2021.03.24 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

WP(C) No.506/2021;

CM No.1549/2021

under Article 226 or/ and 227 of the Constitution of India, but such scope is

available on very limited grounds like fraud/ misrepresentation, as provided

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Bharvagi Construction & Anr.

V. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors.; AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4428'. It

further emanates from the aforesaid judicial dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that while dealing with such a Writ petition challenging the award of

the Lok Adalat, the Court has to decide as to whether any ground was made

out by the petitioner for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds

are sufficient for its quashing.

06. Applying the above perspective to the facts and circumstances of

the case on hand, what emerges is that the petitioners have not based their

claim seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat vis-

à-vis some fraud or misrepresentation, instead, the petitioners' case revolves

round the plea of lack of availability of transport facilities to the inhabitants

of the area, notwithstanding the fact that the Lok Adalat has already taken care

of the grievance projected by the inhabitants of the area in the impugned order.

The grounds projected by the petitioners in the instant petition cannot be said

to be sufficient for quashing the order of the Lok Adalat. The parties appeared

before the Lok Adalat for settlement of their dispute and it was with their

consent that the matter was disposed of taking care of the grievance of both

the parties. In case the petitioners, in the capacity of Sarpanch and Deputy

Sarpanch, as claimed by them, were having any separate grievance on the

subject matter, they ought to have approached the competent forum for

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2021.03.24 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

WP(C) No.506/2021;

CM No.1549/2021

seeking redressal of the same. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit

in this petition filed by the petitioners for seeking the relief as claimed.

Besides, the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, being distinguishable, are not applicable to the case on hand.

07. In the above background, this petition is found to be devoid of

any merit. It entails dismissal and is hereby dismissed, alongwith the

connected CM.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge SRINAGAR March 22nd, 2021 "TAHIR"

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2021.03.24 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document