1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2012 whereby the petitioner's preliminary objection regarding maintainability of application before Permanent Lok Adalat has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the Act the Permanent Lok Adalat can only consider, whether a dispute can be settled by conciliation or not but where it is not possible the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate the dispute on merits. He placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement in State of Punjab and others Vs. Phulan Rani and another, 2004(3) AWC 2586; State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and others, AIR 2009 SC 1209 and a Single Judge judgement of this Court in Smt. Jai Devi Hans Vs. Smt. Beena Singh and others, AIR 2005 All 349.
3. The aforesaid judgements referred to the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1987") prior to its amendment made in 2002 hence have no application to this case. After the amendment of Act, 1987 power of Permanent Lok Adalat in relation to adjudication has already been settled by Apex Court and the said decision has been followed by this Court also.
5. Act 1987 was enacted with an object to secure operation of legal system and promoting justice on the basis of equal opportunity. Section 22B talks of establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more "public utility services" and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. The term "Public Utility Service" has been explained in Section 22A(b) of Act 1987 and reads as under:
"public utility service" means any-
(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or
(ii)postal, telegraph or telephone service; or
(iii)supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or
(iv)system of public conservancy or sanitation; or
(v)service in hospital or dispensary; or
(vi)insurance service.
and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purpose of this chapter."
6. In respect to a Public Utility Service, jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat can be invoked. A dispute can be raised before Permanent Lok Adalat provided the parties had not already taken up their matter before any Court. Making observation in the context of the provisions of Permanent Lok Adalat in Act 1987, the Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment in Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. Vs. N. Satchidanand, 2011(7) SCC 463 said:
"But in this case, the Respondent did not approach a "court". The claim was filed by the Respondent before a Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('LSA Act' for short). Section 22C provides that any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute. When the statement, additional statements, replies etc., are filed in an application filed before it, the Permanent Lok Adalat is required to conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties, taking into account, the circumstances of the dispute and assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat is required to decide the dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalats are authorized to deal with and decide only disputes relating to service rendered by notified public utility services provided the value does not exceed Rupees Ten Lakhs and the dispute does not relate to a non-compoundable offence. Section 22D provides that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting the conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the LSA Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 22E provides that every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on the parties and could be transmitted to a civil court having local jurisdiction for execution. Each and every provision of Chapter VIA of LSA Act emphasizes that is the Permanent Lok Adalatis a Special Tribunal which is not a 'court'. As noted above, Section 22C of the LSA Act provides for an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat in regard to a dispute before the dispute is brought before any court and that after an application is made to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to the application shall invoke the jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute, thereby making it clear that Permanent Lok Adalat is distinct and different from a court. The nature of proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat is initially a conciliation which is non-adjudicatory in nature. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement by conciliation, the Permanent Lok Adalat mutates into an adjudicatory body, by deciding the dispute. In short the procedure adopted by Permanent Lok Adalats is what is popularly known as 'CON-ARB' (that is "conciliation cum arbitration") in United States, where the parties can approach a neutral third party or authority for conciliation and if the conciliation fails, authorize such neutral third party or authority to decide the dispute itself, such decision being final and binding. The concept of 'CON-ARB' before a Permanent Lok Adalat is completely different from the concept of judicial adjudication by courts governed by the Code of Civil Procedure."
(emphasis added)
7. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha and Anr. JT 2008 (6) SC 517 the role of Permanent Lok Adalat has been described by the Court as borne out from a reading of the various provision in Chapter VIA of Act 1987 as under:
"26. 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 the role of an adjudicator. The Parliament has given the authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It has an adjudicating role to play." (emphasis added)
8. The above two decisions have been followed by this Court in Writ Petition No.58289 of 2011 (Deputy General Manager, Bhartiya Door Sanchal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Ram Kumar Sharma & ors.), decided on 17th October, 2011 and therein the Court has affirmed the decision of Permanent Lok Adalat granting damages on account of failure on the part of Public Utility Service to serve the individual concerned in rendering a particular service, which it was supposed to do so.
9. The above discussion and exposition of law, as laid down above, leaves no manner of doubt that Permanent Lok Adalat, in the present case, was not bereft of jurisdiction and the impugned order warrants no interference on the ground of alleged lack of jurisdiction which this Court answer in negative.
10. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2012 AK