Jharkhand High Court
Telecom District Manager ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 15 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 5826 of 2012
........
Telecom District Manager (T.D.M.), Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (BSNL), Dumka & Ors. .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, A.C. to GP-III.
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate.
........
07/15.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha,
learned counsel for the State,Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, A.C. to GP-III and
learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh.
This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated
13.10.2008 passed by the learned Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat in
PLA Case No.110/2007, whereby the application filed by the respondent
no.2, Ratan Mishra has been allowed adjudicating the disputed question of
fact. It has been ordered that Rs.2,000/-, which has been deposited by
respondent no.2 as security money be refunded. It has further been held
that respondent no.2 (petitioner therein) is awarded Rs.20,000/- by way of
compensation for the harassment and mental agony and amount of
compensation must be payable from the personal salary of the O.P. Nos.1
& 2 within 45 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Permanent
Lok Adalat has mis-constitute the scope of Permanent Lok Adalat as it has
been held by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha & Anr. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 454 and the
judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2008) 3 JLJR 513,
where it has been held that PLA has no jurisdiction to directly invoke the
provisions of Section 22-C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and
decide the dispute on merit against the will of the party.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and that may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh
after perusal of the judgment has submitted that if the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
has already been there, the respondent may be given liberty to agitate the
issue before the competent court of law.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, A.C. to
G.P.-III has submitted that if the respondent no.2 has any grievances, he is
free to take legal recourse available under the law.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the
judgment passed by the Apex Court, since the PLA court has no
jurisdiction to decide the disputed question between the parties, impugned
order passed by the PLA court is hereby set aside.
However, liberty is given to the respondent no.2, Ratan Mishra, S/o
Sri Shyam Sundar Mishra to invoke the provisions of law for his
grievances.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed with aforesaid
observation.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
