IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18759 of 2011 Jeet Narain Chaudhary Versus Uday Narain Chaudhary ---------------------------------- 5. 09.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the award dated 25.5.2004 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Rohtas at Sasaram in Case No. 219-D of 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was made party in the said case No. 219-D of 2004 but the respondents impersonated him by playing fraud on the Permanent Lok Adalat and obtained the award which has been challenged. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner never signed the compromise application. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned this Court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has no jurisdiction to record a finding regarding fraud. The so called Permanent Lok Adalat has also no jurisdiction to decide this question because the Permanent Lok Adalat which are functioning in Bihar are not constituted under Section 22 (b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. In the case of Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Satchitanand (2011) 7 SCC 463 and also in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Suresh Kumar 2 (2011) 7 SCC 491 the Apex Court has held that Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 are not court and they have got no adjudicatory function and, therefore, they cannot decide any lis between the parties. In a division bench decision of this Court in the case of Meena Chaudhari vs. Dr. Dilip Chaudhari the division of this Court passed an order on 6.11.2009 in CWJC No. 14426 of 2009 to the effect that the powers of Lok Adalats are not co-extensive with that of civil courts who have full power to take evidence including oral evidence and also to exercise necessary powers under Section 151 C.P.C. It appears that in that case also the petitioner has challenged the award of the permanent Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud. This Court directed that the petitioner will be entitled to invoke plenary jurisdiction of civil court to claim necessary relief on the ground of fraud and the writ application was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach civil court. In view of the above facts and law laid down by the Apex Court as well by the Division Bench of this Court the award under challenge cannot be interfered with on the ground of fraud in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, as has been directed by the division bench the petitioner may approach the civil court, if not already approached for the redressal of his grievance and if such application or proceeding is initiated or if already initiated by the petitioner, the concerned court shall 3 examine all the matters and issues on its own merits including the issue of granting any order or relief to the petitioner according to law. With this observation this writ application is disposed of. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)