IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY [SECTION]17/1ST JYAISHTA, 1939 OP(C).No. 2536 of [SECTION]16 (O) EP.NO.191/[SECTION]09 IN PLD NO.178/[SECTION]08 OF SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. PETITIONER(S): 1. SANTHOSH C., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHAKRAPANI, VIJAYABHAVANAM, [ENTITY], ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MOHANAN. P.,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHAN, THIRUVALAMTHARA [ENTITY], ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SAJIMON. S., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SASI, THATHWAMAI,[ENTITY], ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN, SMT.T.J.SEEMA. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS: 1. [ENTITY] NO.245, [ENTITY], ALAPPUZHA- 688 005. 2. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], SECRETARY, [ENTITY] NO. 245, [ENTITY], ALAPPUZHA- 688 005. 3. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], PRESIDENT [ENTITY] NO.245, [ENTITY], ALAPPUZHA -688 005. 4. [ENTITY], KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, KOLLAM -691 001. OP(C).No. 2536 of [SECTION]16 (O) 5. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001. 6. THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, AMBALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 001. 7. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY]. 8. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA-688 004. R1 BY [ENTITY], SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. [ENTITY], [ENTITY]. R2 & R3 BY ADV. [ENTITY]. R4 BY ADV. [ENTITY]. R5 & R6 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.I. JOHNSON. R7 BY ADV. SRI [ENTITY]. R8 BY [ENTITY], SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. [ENTITY]. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/04/[SECTION]17, THE COURT ON 22-05-[SECTION]17 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. OP(C).No. 2536 of [SECTION]16 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS FRAMED BY THE [ENTITY] DIRECTOR BOARD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE [ACT]. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 21-07-[SECTION]16 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SALE PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED BY ADV. C. PARAMESWARAN DATED 22-08-[SECTION]16. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.16833/[SECTION]12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27-07-[SECTION]12. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 30-09-[SECTION]08. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P NO.191/[SECTION]09 IN PLD NO.178/[SECTION]08 OF THE SUB COURT ALAPPUZHA DATED 13-01-[SECTION]16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/04/[SECTION]07 OF AMBALAPPUZHA SNDP UNION. EXT.R2B COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/10/[SECTION]12 IN RFA NO.105/[SECTION]12. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE rs. '[ENTITY], J. O.P.(C) No. 2536 of [SECTION]16 Dated this the 22nd day of May, [SECTION]17 J U D G M E N T
1.This original petition is filed, challenging the execution proceedings initiated based on the award of the Legal Services Authority under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2.Though proceedings under [SECTION] are maintainable as against the proceedings before the execution court, the petitioners cannot challenge an award along with the proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Suryakant Naidu v. Amit Kumar ([SECTION]16 KHC 3584), wherein it was held that the award of the Legal Services Authority could be challenged invoking Article
227. Allahabad High Court also took a similar view in 2
Shashi Prateek (Dr.) v. Charan Singh Verma & Another [[SECTION]09 KHC 6345] that the award passed by the [ENTITY] can be interfered with invoking [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3.[ENTITY]s are being organized by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Taluk Legal Services Committee as the case may be. [ENTITY]s are held at such intervals and places as the authorities decide. [SECTION] of the Act refers to the organization of [ENTITY]s. Jurisdiction of the [ENTITY] is to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. [SECTION] of the [ACT] sets out the procedure to be followed by the [ENTITY].
4.I am not able to follow the dictum of Chhattisgarh High Court or Allahabad High Court for the obvious reason that "[ENTITY]" would not fall within the meaning of court or tribunal as referred under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. [ENTITY] becomes functus officio, the moment it discharges its duties and functions. It is to 3
be noted that "tribunal," as referred in [SECTION], is alongside the court. Therefore, it is clear that a tribunal must have the trappings of at least some functions discharged by the court. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and State of M.P. v. Anshuman Shukla [AIR [SECTION]08 SC 2454] fortify this view. No judicial functions are discharged by [ENTITY] constituted under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. [SECTION] of the Act explicit as to the nature of the organization of [ENTITY]s. On mere reading of [SECTION] and [SECTION], it makes the position clear as to the functions discharged by [ENTITY]. I am of the considered view that the members of [ENTITY] act as "conciliators" to facilitate settlement between the parties. They cannot decide a dispute. Therefore, [ENTITY] is not an adjudicating body. If it has no power to adjudicate, it can neither be called as a tribunal nor as a court within the meaning of 4
[SECTION] of the [ACT]. Therefore, the award of the [ENTITY] cannot be challenged invoking [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Certainly, if the [ENTITY] failed in discharging its functions in terms of statutory provisions, a writ petition would be maintainable as against the award. Since this original petition is filed under [SECTION], I am not adverting to the scope of challenge under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in this case.
5.The petitioner cannot challenge an execution petition without challenging the award of [ENTITY] in a proper manner. Therefore, leaving open the issues canvassed, the original petition is dismissed. No costs.
[ENTITY] JUDGE bka/-