IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30394 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2007 IN IA 4721/07 IN OS.922/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HAMEED SUBAIR, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHARUMPARAMBIL, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THAJUNISSA, RESIDING AT GREENLAND HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. IQUBAL, RESIDING AT GREENLAND HOUSE, HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THAJUNISSA, GREENLAND HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. N.SUNITHA, RESIDING AT GREENLAND HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. N.AARIF, RESIDING AT GREENLAND HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 5. N.NASEEMA, RESIDING AT GREENLAND HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 6. N.IYSHA, RESIDING AT GREENLAND HOUSE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) A writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the court below to enforce Ext.P6 award of the Lok Adalath in order to do the repairing work of the shed in question. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the court below to proceed with Ext.P9 execution petition in order to enforce Ext.P6 award of the Lok Adalath. iii) To issue orders or direction which are deemed just and necessary according to the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Issue appropriate orders or directions, restraining the respondents interfering with the repairing work of the shed in question. W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers v) To award exemplary cost to this petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.922 of 2002 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Alapuzha. Suit was one for arrears of rent. Suit was referred to Adalath for settlement. In the Adalath it was settled between the parties and an award was passed, is the case of the petitioner. Terms of the settlement arrived between the parties provided for payment of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the plaintiffs and on such payment made permission to be accorded to the petitioner/defendant to carry out repairs in the lease hold premises. Payment was made as agreed upon by the parties but no permission was given to carry out the repairs by the landlords, according to the petitioner. After the settlement arrived at the Adalath, admittedly the suit was disposed as not pressed. Petitioner/defendant moved an application in the W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers suit which had already been disposed by the court as not pressed seeking directions/orders permitting him to carryout repairs in the lease hold premises. That application was dismissed by the court below vide Ext.P8 order. While disposing of Ext.P8 order, the court observed that if the Adalath had passed an award as canvassed by the petitioner, then his remedy was to execute that award. In the light of Ext.P8 order and the observations made thereunder, petitioner moved an application for executing the award purported to have been passed in the Lok Adalath. That execution petition was declined to be received and taken on the file of the court is the grievance espoused in the writ petition for issue of a writ/direction/order to the court below for receiving the petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. From the submissions made and also perusing exhibits produced with the writ petition, the primary question that emerges for consideration is whether Ext.P6 constitute an award passed by a Lok Adalath as contemplated under the Legal Service Authorities Act 1987. Ext.P6 shows the proceedings of the Lok Adalath in O.S No.922/2002, as recorded by the Ambalapuzha Taluk Legal Service Committee, Ambalapuzha. It does not show who are the members of the Lok Adalath nor bear the signatures of the parties and the members of the Lok Adalath after recording of the settlement reached by the parties in the Adalath. Section 19(2) of the Legal Service Authorities Act 1987 mandates that every Lok Adalath organised shall consist of such number of persons, consisting of (1) Serving or retired judicial officers and (2) other persons. Such other persons may be a member of the Social Service W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers Organisation or any other person acquainted with law and the like. A Lok Adalath can be constituted not by an individual serving or retired judicial officer. It should consist of such members as are required for its constitution as contemplated by the Act. Ext.P6 proceedings does not disclose as already indicated who are the members of the Lok Adalath other than showing that a proceeding was conducted by the Taluk Legal Service Committee in relation to the suit O.S No.922/2002 of Additional Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. Then the next question is whether the proceedings reflected in Ext.P6 should constitute an award as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act which could be deemed as a decree passed by a civil court. In Ext.P6, the proceedings conducted on three dates are given expression to. On 24/03/2009, the proceedings would show that there was a settlement between the parties by which the defendants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Subject to such W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers payments, the plaintiff agreed to give consent for necessary aid to repair the lease hold premises, but, without making any alteration of the original structure. For payment, it is seen, the matter was adjourned to 31/03/2009. On 31/03/2009 after noting the parties were not present, it was adjourned to 07/04/2009. What transpired on 07/04/2009 is given expression to Ext.P6 order in the following terms. “Iqubal the second plaintiff today received Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) on behalf of all plaintiffs from defendant in the Adalath. For further steps and file suit to regular court”. Proceedings is signed by Secretary, ATLSC endorcing 'By order'. An award cannot be passed 'By order' by the Secretary of the Taluk Legal Service committee or any other committee constituted under the Legal Service Authorities Act. It should be an award as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act bearing the signature of the members of the Adalath which constitute the Lok Adalath. According to the W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers learned counsel, “for further steps and file suit to regular court” only indicate of reference to the court from which the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath. I cannot agree. What transpired has to be gathered from what is evident in the proceedings as disclosed by Ext.P6. It is also noticed that when Ext.P6 was intimated, the court below has not accepted it as an award, but, dismissed the suit as 'not pressed'. That indicate that by Ext.P6 whatever be the consensus arrived by the parties, there was no award as contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act. So far as the observations made in Ext.P8 order by the court below that if Ext.P6 is an award, the petitioner can enforce it as provided by law. It is to be stated that also does not assist the petitioner in any manner. Ext.P8 order has been passed by the court after disposal of the suit in an interlocutory application moved by the petitioner for enforcing the agreement arrived at in the Adalath. Such an application could not have been W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers entertained by the trial court after disposal of the suit. Further more it is also seen that the court has not observed that the petitioner has a legally enforcible right to execute Ext.P6 by way of execution as if Ext.P6 contemplated an award. There is only a reference to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in relation to that petition. The court merely observed that if that be the case of the petitioner then his remedy is to approach the execution court, that alone, and nothing else. 4. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the court declining to receive Ext.P6 execution petition filed by the petitioner canvassing a case that Ext.P6 constituted an award passed by a Lok Adalath. Ext.P6 does not prima facie, satisfy the legal requirements necessary to treat it as an award passed by the Lok Adalath. At the most, in a proceeding conducted by the Taluk Legal Service Committee styled as a Lok Adalath, W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers some consensus was reached between the parties by which a settlement was arrived which finally resulted in non pressing of the suit by the plaintiff and its disposal. 5. However where on the basis of the settlement in a proceeding before the Taluk Legal Service Committee the plaintiff had taken an advantage agreeing to give consent to the defendant to carry out repairs without altering the structure of the building, even if the proceedings do not constitute an award capable of being executed through court it is open to petitioner/ defendant to take appropriate remedies to give effect to the agreement, as provided by law. Even if Ext.P6 does not constitute an award, it can be termed as an agreement between the parties entered before a lawful authority. By virtue of that agreement the plaintiff had collected Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) but has failed to perform the obligation arising thereunder that is of permitting W.P.(C).No.30394 OF 2009 Page numbers the defendant to carry out the repairs. It is open to the defendant to institute a suit and seek appropriate reliefs from appropriate court as provided by law. Petitioner/plaintiff can also seek for interim reliefs pointing out that through the intervention of the court a settlement was arrived, which, however could not satisfy the requirements of the award under Section 23 of the Legal Service Authorities Act Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as provided by law if so advised, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv