Manjula D/O Chinanand Dolli vs State Bank Of Hyderabad And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2432 Kant

                                     1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                               BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

          WRIT PETITION NO.201751/2017(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Manjula D/o Chinanand Dolli
Age: About 28 years, OO: Household & Agri
R/o H.No.66, L.I.G., Badepur Colonoy, III Phase
Kalaburagi.
                                                             ... Petitioner

(By Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate)

AND:

1. State Bank of Hyderabad
   Super Market Branch, Kalaburagi
   Through it's Assistant General Manager
   Seshkumar S/o Koteshwar Rao
   Aged about: 51 Years
   R/o Kalaburagi-585103
   (Presently changed as State Bank of India (S.B.I))

2. Adbul Khadar S/o Shaik Ahmed
   Aged about: 53 years Occ: Household & Agri
   R/o Kurikota,
   Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi-585103.
                                                          ... Respondents

(By Sri R.V.Nadagouda, Advocate for R1; R2 Served)

       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
whereby quashing the judgment and award passed by the Permanent Lok
                                    2


Adalat Court, Kalaburagi dated 15.03.2016 in P.L.A.C. No.100 of 2012 as
at Annexure-B & B1 to this writ petition and etc.

       This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group this
day, the Court made the following:

                               ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned judgment

and award dated 15.03.2016 passed in PLAC No.100/2012 by

the Permanent Lok-Adalat for Public Utility Services,

Kalaburagi whereby the petition filed by the respondent No.1-

State Bank of Hyderabad was allowed by the Lok-Adalat

which directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,74,729/- together

with interest at the rate of 11.50% per annum and issued

further directions in this regard.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the

material on record.

3. The material on record indicates that the

respondent No.1-Bank instituted the aforesaid petition in

PLAC No.100/2012 against the petitioner herein and

respondent No.2 herein for recovery of money together with

interest and for other reliefs. The said petition having been

contested by the petitioner herein, the Permanent Lok-Adalat

recorded both oral and documentary evidence and proceeded

to pass the impugned judgment and award which is assailed

by the petitioner in the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the petition and referring to the material on record,

learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to

the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Estate

Officer Vs. Colonal H.V. Mankotia, reported in 2021 SCC

Online SC 898 in order to contend that the Apex Court has

held that Lok-Adalath/Permanent Lok-Adalath does not have

jurisdiction or authority or law to decide the dispute on merits.

It is therefore contended that the impugned judgment and

award passed by the Lok-Adalth which has adjudicated and

decided the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent

No.1-Bank on merits is wholly without jurisdiction or authority

of law and the same deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1 submits that the aforesaid decision in Estate Officer Vs.

Colonal H.V. Mankotia supra was rendered in relation to Lok-

Adalaths and not Permanent Lok-Adalaths which are

governed by Chapter-VIA, Sections 22A to 22E of the Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987; it is submitted that since the

impugned order was passed by the Permanent Lok-Adalath

and not by the Lok-Adalath, the aforesaid decision in Estate

Officer Vs. Colonal H.V. Mankotia supra is not applicable to

the facts of the instant case and as such there is no merit in

the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival

contentions and perused the material on record.

7. A perusal of the material on record including the

impugned order will indicate that obviously neither the

decision of the Apex Court in Estate Officer Vs. Colonal H.V.

Mankotia supra nor the provisions contained in Chapter-VIA,

Sections 22A to 22E of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

were considered by the Permanent Lok-Adalath before

passing the impugned judgment and award. Under these

circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the

merits/de-merits of rival contentions, I deem it just and

appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and award

and remit the matter back to the Permanent Lok-Adalath for

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 15.03.2016 in PLAC No.100/2012 at Annexure-B & B1 are hereby set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the Permanent Lok-Adalath, Kalaburagi for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce additional/further evidence in support of their respective claims.

v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL