Telangana High Court

The Chief Post Master And Another vs Mrs. Ramadevi And Another on 19 June, 2024

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

               WRIT PETITION No.8739 OF 2009

ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

None appears.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to the order dated 02.02.2009 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.4555 of 2008 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the National Savings Certificate Rules and pass and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Brief facts of the case:

Respondent No.1 purchased 6 year National Saving

Certificates (for short 'NSCs') with serial No.928976-928985

(ten certificates value of Rs.10,000/- each) on 15.07.2000

and certificate serial No.30E 495690 to 30E 495699 (ten

certificates value of Rs.10,000/- each) on 12.10.2000 by

investing Rs.2,00,000/- through her father who was a

CJ & JAK,J

registered G.P.A. Holder for her by virtue of registered G.P.A.

dated 28.07.1982.

3.1. Respondent No.1 visited petitioners' office on

02.03.2007 for surrendering the NSCs to receive the

matured amount, respondent was asked to produce the

proof of identity, when she produced her passport issued by

the USA Government, she was informed that NRI is not

entitled to invest the amount in NSC and was further

informed that Rule 4(3) of NSC (VIII-Issue) Rules, 1989

prohibits NRI to purchase and that she was holding the

certificates in violation of NSC Rules.

3.2. Respondent No.1 approached Permanent Lok Adalat,

Permanent Lok Adalat exercising its jurisdiction under

Section 22-A (b) (ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act,

1987 (for short 'the Act, 1987') considered the application of

respondent No.1 and as envisaged under Section 22-C of the

Act, 1987, conducted conciliation proceedings. As the

parties failed to reach an agreement, Permanent Lok Adalat

CJ & JAK,J

decided the dispute as per Section 22-C (8) of the Act, 1987.

Writ petition is filed challenging the order of Permanent

Lok Adalat.

4. It is averred in the writ affidavit filed in support of the

writ petition that Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction

to decide the dispute on merits as the dispute involved

pertains to finding of facts and a trial should be conducted.

Reliance is placed on the Apex Court's judgment in State of

Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others 1, for the

proposition that Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction

to decide the dispute akin to a Court. It is further averred

that respondent No.1 was a Non Resident Indian (NRI) and

never disclosed the fact in her application or in the G.P.A.

while purchasing the certificates. It is also stated that the

said dispute is to be decided by Consumer Forum, under

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the issue is with regard

to deficiency of service. Other ground pleaded is

1 (2008) 2 SCC 660

CJ & JAK,J

that respondent No.1 cannot hold the NSCs and same is

against the rules and prayed to suspend the operation and

to set aside the order dated 02.02.2009 in P.L.A.C.No.4555

of 2008.

5. We have perused the record. It is not in dispute that

respondent No.1 has purchased NSCs 20 in number (each

denomination value of Rs.10,000/-) and the said NSC

matured on 28.07.2006 and 17.10.2006. It is also not in

dispute that the said certificates were purchased by the

G.P.A. holder for respondent No.1.

6. Section 22-A (b) of the Act, 1987, defines "public utility

service". Section 22-A (b) (ii) of the Act, 1987 defines public

utility service means, "postal, telegraph and telephone

service". By virtue of Section 22-A (b) (ii) of the Act, 1987,

read with 22-B an application made by a party before

Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute with respect

to postal, telegraph and telephone service can be taken up

CJ & JAK,J

by Permanent Lok Adalat as jurisdiction is conferred by

virtue of Section 22-B of the Act, 1987 which is as follows:

"22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification.

(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of--

(a) a person who is, or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and

(b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government."

The contention that Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction

cannot be sustained.

CJ & JAK,J

7. Permanent Lok Adalat conducted conciliation

proceedings. It is recorded in the order that, in conciliation

proceedings writ petitioners filed written statement and were

seeking adjournments from time to time on the ground of

approval for regularization of transactions from Director

General, Department of Posts, New Delhi, for payment to the

respondent No.1. As parties failed to reach an agreement by

subjecting themselves for conciliation proceedings as per the

Act, 1987 Permanent Lok Adalat decided the matter on

merits. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of

Permanent Lok Adalat that there was no mention with

regard to the non-eligibility of NRIs to purchase NSCs and

also with the observation that the postal authorities have

not verified the application thoroughly and issued National

Savings Certificates. It is borne by record that petitioners

herein sought regularization of the transaction with the

Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi. We are

in agreement with the observation of the Permanent Lok

Adalat that for the mistake of petitioner's, respondent

CJ & JAK,J

should not suffer. Permanent Lok Adalat after assigning

cogent reasons in its order, dated 02.02.2009, partly allowed

the matter and held as follows:

"For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow

to pay the maturity amount and interest on matured amount as applicable on Time Deposits in Post Offices for 5 years and above till the date of realization on National Savings Certificates bearing Nos. 25EE 928976 to 25EE 928985 and 30EE 495690 to 30EE 495699 to the Petitioner, failing which Respondents shall pay same interest on decreetal amount from date of award till date of payment and the petitioner will be at liberty to file an Execution Petition for its recovery only after one month from date of Award. The decreetal amount to be credited to Petitioner's Bank account under intimation to this Adalat and the Petitioner or GPA Holder required to furnish Petitioner's Bank Account number to the Respondents within one month from date of award."

8. In State of Punjab (supra), the Apex Court held as

follows:

"12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based

CJ & JAK,J

on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."

Reliance placed on the Apex Court judgment is not

applicable to the facts of the case, in the present case the

award is passed by Permanent Lok Adalat and not under

Section 21 of the Act, 1987. As per Section 22 (c) (8) of the

Act, 1987, Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute and

the provision is as follows:

"22(c)(8): Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute."

9. Petitioners misconceived the order/award passed by

the Permanent Lok Adalat to that of an award passed by Lok

Adalat under Section 21 of the Act, 1987. Permanent Lok

CJ & JAK,J

Adalat exercises its jurisdiction by virtue of Section 22-B of

the Act, 1987. An award passed under Section 21 of the

Act, 1987 is different to that of the award passed exercising

jurisdiction under Section 22 (c) (8) of the Act, 1987.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in

the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed and is

dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall