Orissa High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Permanent Lok Adalat For Public on 22 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.387 Of 2015
(Through hybrid mode)
The Executive Engineer, WESCO .... Petitioners
Electrical Division, Bolangir and
another
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
Permanent Lok Adalat for Public .... Opposite Parties
Utility Service, Bolangir and others
Mr. Ramdas Acharya, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
22.03.2022
Order No.
08. 1. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners
and submits, his client is licensee and engaged in business of
distribution and supply of electricity. He submits, the Permanent Lok
Adalat (PLA) made judgment dated 17th October, 2014 directing, inter
alia, shifting of sub-station.
2. He submits, with reference to record in order dated 15th March,
2022, there were points formulated for adjudication. Paragraph 3 from
order dated 15th March, 2022 is reproduced below.
"3. Parties will be heard firstly, on whether
adjudication is possible by the Lok Adalat that results in a
judgment and secondly, regarding location of sub-station,
// 2 //
whether comes within meaning of public utility service
under section 22A(b)(iii) in Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987. It is recorded that a sub-station is necessary
for the purpose of distribution as opposed to supply of
power to a consumer."
3. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of private
opposite parties and submits, the sub-station is in front of his clients'
house and blocking the drain. There should be no interference with
impugned judgment.
4. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Bar Council of
India Vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 8 SCC 243, paragraphs
26 and 27. He submits, the apex Court had declared law to be settled
that an authority empowered to adjudicate dispute between the parties
and act as a tribunal, may not necessarily have all the trappings of the
Court. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute
adjudicated by means of Court only.
5. He submits with reference to impugned judgment that facts of
the case were correctly appreciated by the PLA. One 11/0.4 KV 250
KVA electric substation has been installed in front of the house of his
clients at Malpada of Bolangir town near Masjid Chowk, without
their consent. The PLA passed judgment directing petitioners to
relocate the substation.
6. Order made by impugned judgment is reproduced below.
" The application is allowed in part on contest against
the Respondent No.1 and without contest against the
Respondent No.2.
// 3 //
The Respondents are directed to shift the Sub-
Station from its existing location to Metakani Chowk
near Metakani Sub-Station or to any other suitable place
selected by the Respondents within three months from
the date of this order.
Here, we make it clear that, in case, the
Respondents fail to shift the Sub-Station in question
within the stipulated period, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh) only shall be realized from them and
after realization of the amount, the Applicants shall
place the same before the Secretary, District Legal
Services Authority, Balangir for utilization of the amount
in giving legal aid to the poor and needy persons of the
society.
The Applicants are at liberty to execute the
Award through the process of the Civil Courts in case
the Award is not complied by the Respondents."
7. It appears, directions made by the order in the judgment is in
the alternative. Petitioners, at first instance, were directed to shift the
substation to any other suitable place selected by them. Failing the
shifting within stipulated period of three months, petitioners were to
pay, as realized from them, Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh).
Applicants before the Lok Adalat were then given liberty to execute
the award through process of civil Courts in case of non-compliance.
8. There cannot be dispute on the proposition that adjudication
// 4 //
must be in accordance with law, if it is to be recognized as
adjudication. Rule 32 in order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
provides, inter alia, for mode of execution of a decree for injunction.
The mode of execution provided is by detention in civil prison or by
attachment of property or both. The alternative direction in the award
for realization of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) from petitioners
must be seen as a direction for payment of compensation. It cannot be
a direction of costs because the provision for costs given by section
35(CPC) empowers Courts to use discretion to award it. The PLA, not
being a Court and the legislative intent being settlement of disputes
below a certain pecuniary limit, by the tribunal to prevent
overcrowding in Court, excepts the tribunal out of it invoking the
provision to exercise discretion to award costs. Compensation was not
asked for by applicants before the PLA.
9. For ascertaining whether shifting of a substation belonging to
the licensee, supplying electricity to consumers, is covered by section
22 A (b)(iii) in Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, Court posed to
Mr. Acharya query on the direction, does it pertain to supply of power
to his client? Mr. Acharya submitted, the substation is for the purpose
of supplying power and, therefore, covered by meaning of public
utility services given in clause (b) of section 22A.
// 5 //
10. The PLA has impliedly issued a writ of Mandamus. It appears
the award, instead of settling the issue between parties before the PLA,
has caused several questions to arise in the working of directions made
in the award. As such, this Court is convinced that the award suffers
illegality and was made with material irregularity.
11. Impugned award is set aside and quashed.
12. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
