IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1712 of 2010 1. ARJUN THAKUR S/O LATE MATHURA THAKUR R/O MOHALLA- MAKHLOUTGANJ NEAR DEVI ASTHAN, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRESIDING OFFICER, PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, GAYA 3. CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE CLAIM TRIBUNAL CUM- DISTRICT-JUDGE, GAYA 4. RUBY DEVI WIDOW OF LATE VIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 34 'A' G.R.P. COLONY, STATION ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. GAYA R.M.S., DISTT.- GAYA 5. PRIYANKA SINHA D/O LATE VIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 34 'A' G.R.P. COLONY, STATION ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. GAYA R.M.S., DISTT.- GAYA 6. PRIYA KUMARI D/O LATE VIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 34 'A' G.R.P. COLONY, STATION ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. GAYA R.M.S., DISTT.- GAYA 7. RANJEET KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 34 'A' G.R.P. COLONY, STATION ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. GAYA R.M.S., DISTT.- GAYA 8. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 34 'A' G.R.P. COLONY, STATION ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. GAYA R.M.S., DISTT.- GAYA 9. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 34 'A' G.R.P. COLONY, STATION ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. GAYA R.M.S., DISTT.- GAYA 10. SHYAM KUMAR THAKUR @ TINKU S/O ARJUN THAKUR R/O MOHALLA- MAKHLAUTGANJ NEAR DEVI ASTHAN, P.S.- KOTWALI, P.O. R.M.S. GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 03. 01.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle which met with an accident. The vehicle was admittedly not insured. It is submitted that the Motor Vehicle accident case was referred to the Lok Adalat without his consent. He never consented for payment of any compensation. The 2 Lok Adalat could not have passed an adjudicatory order fixing liability. The vehicle was not insured. No benefit can therefore flow to the family members of the deceased under the Motor Vehicle Act. The liability shall rest upon the petitioner alone for using an uninsured vehicle prohibited by law. The order grants Rs. 50,000/- as interim relief. Considering that death did take place on account of collision not denied by the petitioner, the vehicle was uninsured, a fact not denied by the petitioner, the Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. It has been held in 2008 (7) SCC 454 (United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Ajay Sinha) at paragraph-28 as follows:- “28. Here, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat does not simply adopt the role of an arbitrator whose award could be the subject- matter of challenge but also the role of an adjudicator. Parliament has given the authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It has an adjudicating role to play.” It is not every order that may be interfered in the writ jurisdiction merely because it is proper to interfere. Even a wrong order may be declined interference in the specified facts and circumstances of a case for reasons to be spelt out. 3 This has been explained in paragraph 23 in 2005 (6) SCC 454 (ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel) as hereinafter:- “23. It is now well settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India may not strike down even a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law.” The writ application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)