Satyabrata Dhir vs Debendra Mohan Pattnaik And
2022 Latest Caselaw 1871 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.6712 Of 2021
                           (Through hybrid mode)

        Satyabrata Dhir                          ....            Petitioner

                                               Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate
                                    -versus-

        Debendra Mohan Pattnaik and              ....     Opposite Parties
        another

                                                 Mr. G. Mishra, Advocate

                 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order                              ORDER
No.                               16.03.2022
  6.    1.      Mr. Bhokta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, impugned is award dated 16th November, 2019 made by

Permanent Lok Adalat, Cuttack. He demonstrates from the order that

his client stayed away from the Lok Adalat, did not participate in

conciliation nor in the hearing and adjudication, resulting in impugned

award. He submits, disputes and differences exist between the parties,

his client requires adjudication of the disputes and therefore did not

join for attempt at settlement. The award itself says that it is an

adjudication on merits and that too ex parte against his client. He relies

on judgment dated 7th October, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Estate

Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired) in Civil Appeal

no.6223 of 2021, in which there was clear declaration of law that the

// 2 //

Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case and

decide the matter on merits, in case the settlement is not arrived at.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite

party no.1 and submits, his client is also aggrieved by the award

inasmuch as the claim for interest was not allowed. He submits, under

sub-section (8) in section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,

the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute. He

draws attention to certified copy of order dated 9th August, 2019,

disclosed in his client's writ petition W.P.(C) no.32860 of 2020

(tagged) to show that terms of possible settlement were formulated by

the Lok Adalat and thereafter the decision regarding the dispute, on

merits. Mr. Bhokta respond, his client never participated in any

proceeding before the Lok Adalat.

3. Section 22C provides, inter alia, once the Lok Adalat has been

approached by a party, no party involved thereby shall invoke

jurisdiction of any Court in the same district. It appears that none of

the parties thereafter invoked jurisdiction of a Court. Sub-section (3)

provides for notice and filing of statement, additional statement and

reply sub-section (4) says, statement, additional statement and reply, if

any, on having been filed to satisfaction of the Lok Adalat, it shall

commence conciliation proceeding between the parties to the

application.

// 3 //

4. In impugned order, inter alia following was said.

"The opp. parties have not filed written statement inspite of service of notice and subsequently the record was placed for conciliation and the O.Ps did not take any step. On 20.07.2019 learned counsel for the petitioner filed certain documents and on hearing him, the record was adjourned for formulation of Terms of Possible Settlement (in short, TPS). Objection was invited against the TPS. The applicant has signed on such TPS. The O.Ps. were noticed and the order dated 03.10.2019 reveals that the letter issued to the O.Ps. are delivered but the O.Ps. did not turn up to sign the TPS. They have also not filed objection to the TPS and hence at the time of final hearing, the petitioner is only heard."

5. It is clear that for requirement of conciliation there was

necessity of petitioner having filed additional statement and the other,

applying party, reply, if any. It is therefore clear, following sub-

sections (5) to (8) in section 22C empower the Lok Adalat to embark

on conciliation proceedings by formulation of terms of possible

settlement with consequence that on failure to arrive at the same,

adjudication on formulation of terms of possible settlement. The terms

to be formulated depend on variance of the statement with the

additional statement to be filed by the parties. Terms formulated on

basis of one party's statement only, cannot be said to be terms of

// 4 //

possible settlement.

6. In facts of this case the Lok Adalat could not have invoked its

power under sub-section (8) in section 22,C to adjudicate, when

petitioner had not participated in any proceeding before it. In the

circumstances, impugned award is without jurisdiction. It is set aside

and quashed.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks