Gangadhar Patra & Ors vs Jitendra Suna @ Harijan
2023 Latest Caselaw 361 Ori

               ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                           W.P.(C) NO.17849 OF 2010
AFR           In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
                                Constitution of India.


            Gangadhar Patra & ors.                      : Petitioners

                                     -Versus-

           Jitendra Suna @ Harijan                      : Opposite Parties


            For Petitioners                : M/s.D.R.Bhokta, R.P.Panigrahi,
                                             H.K.Behera & N.Afran, Advs.

            For O.P.                       : M/s.B.Mishra & B.L.Mishra, Advs.
                                             Mr.U.K.Sahoo, ASC

                               JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 10.01.2023

1. The Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order of the District

Legal Services Authority, Nabarangpur in its exercise of power under the

provision of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 appearing at

Annexure-1.

2. Taking this Court to the provision of law and reading through the

same, Mr.Bhokta, learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted to satisfy

the Court that involving the exercise of the District Legal Services

// 2 //

Authority, Nabarangpur under the provision of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987, it is mandatory to first undertake the exercise of

conciliation and if conciliation fails then to decide on merit. Taking this

Court to the manner of disposal, Mr.Bhokta, learned counsel for the

Petitioner alleged that there has been no attempt at all for conciliation of

the dispute involved therein and there is straightway merit disposal.

Mr.Bhokta also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in

Canara Bank vrs. G.S.Jayarama (Civil Appeal No.3872 of 2022

disposed of on 19.5.2022) and took support of the decision to the case of

the Petitioner.

3. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P., however, did not dispute

the allegation of the Petitioner that the Proceeding involved herein has

been decided without endeavouring a conciliation attempt. There is also

no dispute on the settled position of law through the decision in Canara

Bank (supra).

4. Mr.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand

reading through the impugned order attempted to support the impugned

order.

5. Reading the provisions in the Legal Services Authorities Act, this

Court finds, there is mandatory provision at Section 22C(4) mandating

the Permanent Lok Adalat to conduct conciliation proceedings between

// 3 //

the Parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate

taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. Section 22C(5) of

the Act prescribes that during conduct of conciliation proceedings under

Sub-Section (4), assist the Parties in their attempt to reach an amicable

settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.

Sections 22C(6) & 22C(7) of the Act are also required to be followed. For

Section 22C(8) of the Act, in the event there is no conciliation of the

dispute delivered then the Lok Adalat shall decide the dispute.

In the case at hand, there is no following of any of the provisions

taken note of and the Permanent Lok Adalat straightway proceeded to

decide the dispute on merit which is not permissible in the eye of law.

This Court finds, the Petitioners have force in their claim and their such

claim also finds support through the decision in Canara Bank (supra).

6. This Court on perusal of the decision in Canara Bank (supra) cited

at Bar through Paragraph-34 therein finds as follows :-

"34. Consequently, we hold that the observations of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment in respect of the adjudicatory powers of the Permanent Lok Adalats were incorrect, while upholding its ultimate conclusion since the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in the present case. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the dispute between the parties, and all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open."

// 4 //

7. For the undisputed fact that the District Legal Services Authority,

Nabarangpur has disposed of the matter without endeavouring the

conciliation attempt and for the decision taken support to the case of the

Petitioner, the impugned order remains unsustainable. This Court thus

interferes with the impugned order and sets aside the same. However,

since there is requirement of disposal of L.A.No.31/2010 strictly in terms

of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the matter is remitted to the

District Legal Services Authority, Nabarangpur for fresh adjudication of

the matter but strictly in terms of the provision of the Act.

8. The Writ Petition succeeds. No costs.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 10th January, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.