Pahali Nayak vs Secy
2022 Latest Caselaw 2008 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.6393 Of 2022
                           (Through hybrid mode)

        Pahali Nayak                          ....             Petitioner

                                                      Mr. R.N. Behera
                                                             Advocate

                                   -versus-

        Secy, District Legal Aid Authority,   ....      Opposite parties
        Kendrapara and another
                                                     Mr. A.K. Sharma,
                                                                AGA




                  CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Order                             ORDER
No.                              29.03.2022

  1.

1. Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, private opposite party no.2 is falsely claiming

relationship with his client. His client is happily married. At instance

of private opposite party no.2, impugned notice was issued by District

Legal Services Authority for his client to appear before it on 28th

March, 2022, at 10.00 a.m. He submits, this notice be quashed.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 and submits,

petitioner should go before the authority and state his case. Mr. Behera

responds by relying on judgment of Supreme Court in Estate Officer

// 2 //

v. H.V. Mankotia reported in AIR 2021 SC 4894 to submit, law has

been declared to be that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to

decide the matter on merits once it is found that compromise or

settlement could not be arrived at between parties.

3. Section 22C in Legal Services Act, 1987 provides, inter alia,

parties should file statement, additional statement and reply, if any, for

Lok Adalat to conduct conciliation proceedings between them. Where

the parties fail to reach agreement the Lok Adalat is empowered to

decide the dispute. Here, the Legal Services Authority has issued

notice. It is a stage prior to the matter reaching the Lok Adalat.

Petitioner will be well advised to present his case before the authority,

since he could take steps to move Court.

4. In view of above observations, there is no necessity for

direction to issue notice on private opposite party no.2.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks