1 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, JODHPUR & ORS. VS. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,JODHPUR. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 315/06) Date of Judgment :- 16th March,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Manoj Bhandari , for the appellants. Mr. Girish Sarda, for the respondents no. 2 to 4. 1. The matter comes up on two applications filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4, one for early hearing of the matter and another for vacating the interim order dated 29.5.06 passed by this court. However, since very short question is involved in this special appeal therefore, with the consent of the parties, the same was finally heard at this stage and is being disposed of by this order. 2. This special appeal is directed against order dated 26.4.06 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the award dated 13.5.05 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur in pre- litigation case No.17/04, has been dismissed as not maintainable in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “P.T. Thomas vs. Thomas Job”, JT 2005(10) SC 304. 3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondents no. 2 to 4 submitted an application u/s 22-B of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987( in short “the Act of 1987” hereinafter) 2 against the appellants before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur claiming compensation on account of death of their husband/father, who succumbed to the electric shock suffered by him while sitting by the side of road under an electricity pole. The application was contested by the appellants by filing a reply thereto. No amicable settlement of the dispute was arrived at between the parties in the conciliation proceedings therefore, the dispute has been decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat in terms of provisions of Section 22-C (8) of the Act of 1987. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the award impugned in the writ petition has not been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in terms of any settlement or compromise arrived at between the parties but the same has been passed by it after determination of the dispute as an adjudicatory authority therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel submitted that while deciding the dispute in terms of the provisions of Section 22-C (8) of the Act of 1987 , the Permanent Lok Adalat acts as an adjudicatory authority therefore, the correctness of such award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat can always be challenged by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of 3 the Constitution of India. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of “United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Ajay Sinha & Anr.”, (2008) 7 SCC, 454 and “State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Jalour Singh & Ors.”, (2008) 2 SCC, 660. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4 in all fairness submitted that in light of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , relied upon by the counsel for the appellants , the order under appeal deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh on merits. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In P.T. Thomas's case (supra), relied upon by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition summarily as not maintainable , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an award passed by the Lok Adalat in terms of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1987 as a result of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties, held as under:- “16. In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to be decrees of court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This, in our opinion, includes the powers to extend time in 4 appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same. In this connection, the High Court has failed to note that by the award what is put to an end is the appeal in the District Court and thereby the litigations between brothers forever. The view taken by the High Court, in our view, will totally defeat the object and purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decision of the Lok Adalat meaningless. .............xxxxx......................xxxx.............. 23.The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that in Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok Adalat-cum-Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Visakhpatnam and another, the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final. In all fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a court on a regular trial, however, it is as equal and on part with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and conclusive just as the decree passed on the compromises which cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any regular remedies available under law including invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the award on any ground. Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially on the grounds as raised in this writ petition.”(emphasis added) 8. Thus, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Thomas's case (supra) is that the correctness of award passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties and not as a result of contest on merits, cannot be challenged by any regular remedies available under the law including invoking the jurisdiction of the High 5 Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the dispute raised in P.T.Thomas's case (supra) was with regard to an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Chapter VI of the Act of 1987 and not by Permanent Lok Adalat, under Chapter VI A of the Act of 1987 which deals with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement by the Permanent Lok Adalat. In any case, the question with regard to the remedy available against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat after determination of the dispute in terms of the provisions of Section 22 C (8) of the Act of 1987 on failure of the parties to reach at an agreement did not fall for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T.Thomas's case (supra). Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 9. It is to be noticed that the provisions of Section 22 C deals with the settlement of a dispute at the pre-litigation stage and therefore, in the first instance the Permanent Lok Adalat has to take recourse to the conciliation proceedings for settlement of the dispute between the parties and it is only when the parties fail to reach at an agreement, the contested dispute can be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited's case (supra) while dealing with the scope of the proceedings under Section 22 C (8) of the Act of 1987 , held that :- 6 “25. Chapter VI-A stands independently. Whereas the heading of the Chapter talks of pre-litigation, conciliation and settlement. Section 22-C(8) of the Act speaks of determination . It creates another adjudicatory authority, the decision of which by a legal fiction would be a decision of a civil court. It has the right to decide a case. The term “decide” means to determine; to form a definite opinion; to render judgment. Any award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat is executable as a decree. No appeal thereagainst shall lie. The decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties. Whereas on the one hand, keeping in view the parliamentary intent, settlement of all disputes though negotiation, conciliation , mediation, Lok Adalat and judicial settlement are required to be encouraged, it is equally well settled that where the jurisdiction of a court is sought to be taken away, the statutory provisions deserve strict construction. A balance is thus required to be struck. A court of law can be created under a statute. It must have the requisite infrastructure therefor. Independence and impartiality of Tribunal being a part of human right is required to be taken into consideration for construction of such a provision. When a court is created, the incumbents must be eligible to determine the lis.”(emphasis added) 10. Moreover, in Jalour Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that even an award made by the Lok Adalat in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties can be assailed by the aggrieved party by filing writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India on the limited grounds. It is held by the Court that :- “12. It is true that where an award is made by the 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 become 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 on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or 7 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 respondents to either make payment if it agreed 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.”(emphasis added) 11. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings under the provisions of Section 22 C of the Act of 1987 which is undoubtedly adjudicatory and also the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, we are of the considered opinion that the correctness of the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat after determination of the contesting dispute on merits in terms of the provisions of Section 22 C(8) of the Act of 1987 can be challenged by the aggrieved party by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the special appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh on merits. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-