IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.50869 OF 2016 (GM-RES) & WRIT PETITION NOS.51387-51388 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJU S/O SANNAKKI GOWDA, AGE: 37 YEARS, 2. MADHUKUMAR S/O ESHWARE GOWDA, AGE: 35 YEARS, 3. MAHESHA S/O ESHWARE GOWDA, AGE: 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT THIMMANAHALLI, MARLE POST, AMBALE (H), CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 101.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIKAS KRISHNA.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SYNDICATE BANK CHICKMAGALUR BRANCH, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. ESHWARE GOWDA S/O SANNAKKI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MARLE POST, AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
3. BASAVARAJU S/O ESHWARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, MARLE POST, AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. MOHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 04.01.2018) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 10.10.2015 IN PLD NO.02/2015 ON THE FILE OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH (FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) AT MANGALURU D.K., AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Vikas Krishna K., learned counsel for Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri M. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia are assailing the validity of the order dated 10.10.2015, passed by the Lok Adalath at Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that, the petitioners had availed loan from respondent No.1 – Bank on 20.01.2006. The petitioners were defaulter as on 30.09.2014. It appears that the dispute between the parties was referred to the Lok Adalath. Thereupon, the Lok Adalath served the notice on the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not informed and served with the notice of the proceedings. However, the Lok Adalath by impugned award dated 10.10.2015, allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not served with the notice of the proceedings before the Lok Adalath and in their absence, no award may be passed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 inviting the attention of this Court to Section 22(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), submitted that the Lok Adalath as a civil Court has all the powers vested in the civil Court and therefore, it is competent to pass award in the absence of the petitioners and no summons need be issued by the Lok Adalath.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
7. Section 19(5) of the Act provides that Lok Adalath shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before it. In other words, the mater can be decided by the Lok Adalath only after a compromise or settlement is arrived at between the parties.
8. Having regard to the settlement and compromise between the parties is concerned, presence of both the parties is necessary. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners were not present. Therefore, the award passed by the Lok Adalath is perse without jurisdiction as it has no adjudicatory jurisdiction.
9. So far as the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the Lok Adalath is equal to a civil Court, the same is misconceived. From the perusal of Section 22(1) of the Act, it is evident that only limited powers of civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been conferred on the Lok Adalath that is, summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath, discovery and production of any document, the reception of evidence on affidavits, requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office etc. Section 22 of the Act by no stretch of limitation can confer any adjudicatory jurisdiction on Lok Adalath which shall be against the basic concept for which Lok Adalath is constituted. The aforesaid submission is therefore per se and deserves to be repealed.
10. In view of the observations made above, the impugned order dated 10.10.2015, passed by the Lok Adalath is hereby quashed and set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Lok Adalath and the parties are directed to appear before the Lok Adalath on 25.03.2019, along with the copy of the order passed today.
The Lok Adalath shall explore the possibilities of settlement between the parties by way of compromise and settlement and shall proceed in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of with aforesaid directions.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj