Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat and Another

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40467 of 2022

Petitioner :- Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Respondent :- Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Vineet Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, at the outset, submits that Permanent Lok Adalat does not initiate any attempt to conduct conciliation proceedings in terms of Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

¶6

Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel Respondent-2, submits that since petitioner (Respondent before Permanent Lok Adalat) has not appeared despite notice, therefore, there was no illegality in deciding matter on merit as conciliation was not possible.

¶7

Issue in this regard has been dealt in detail by this Court in Writ-C No. 28999 of 2013 (Nitin Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, deiced on 16.12.2021, wherein the question framed by this Court and thereafter Court’s observation in para (Chha) and (Ja) are reproduced as under:

¶8

" ववधधकससववपवधधकरणअधधवनयम 1987 कसअधयवय 6 क ( ममकदमवपपवरसमलहऔर समझझतव ) कक धवरव 22 गवउपधवरव (1) सस (7) कसअअतगरत ' सथवययललकअदवलत ' दवरव ' पपवरकसमलहकवयरवववहयय ’ कक सहवयतवसस ' सझहवररपपणरसमझझतसपरपह ’ ह चनसकस धलयसयमवकयमकपयवसकरनव कयवआवशयकहहतथवउक पयवसअसफलहलनसकक ससथवतमम ' ’ ववववदकववववनशय ( उपधवरव (8)) करनसकसपपवरउककवयरववहयकवसअकसपमम उलसखकरनवभयकयवआवशयकहह , तथवऐसवनहलनसकसकवरणमवतससकयवउदलसवषत ' पअचवट ' अवहधववनकहलजवयसगव ?” “ ( छ ) जहसववकउकअधधवनयमककधवरव 22 गककउपधवरव 3 व 4 ममववणरतहह , वक पककवरयकसधलधखतकथनवववववदकसममदय कसववववधकयकलधयवनममरखतसहहए , पककवरयककबयचसथवईललकअदवलत , समलहकवयरवववहयवअ दवरवपककवरयकलववववदकस

¶9

सवअततऔरवनषपकरयवतममसझहवररपपणरसमझझतसपरपह ह चनसकसधलएउनकसपयवसमम सहवयतवकरसगय।अततयहआवशयकहहवकसथवईललकअदवलत , उकपयवसयकव सअकसपममअपनसआदसशममउलसखकरसकययवकउपधवरव (8) कसअनमसवरयवदपककवर वकसयकरवरपरपह ह चनसससअसफलरहतसहह , उसदशवममहय , सथवययललकअदवलत ववववदकववववनशयकरसकतयहह ( यवदववववदवकसयअपरवधसससअबअधधतनहहहह ) । उपधवरव (8) तकककससथवततकपह ह चनसससपहलसउपधवरव (3), (4), (5) व (6) मम वकयसगयसपयवसवउपधवरव (7) ममसमझझतसपरनपह ह चनसककससथवतकसउपरवनतहय , सथवईललकअदवलत , उपधवरव (8) कसअनतगरतगमण - दलषपरवनणरयलससकतयहह।अतत उककवयरववहयकवउलसख , सअवकपममहयसहय , परनतमअवशयहलनवचववहयस। ( ज ) उपरलक ववशलसषणससयहपपणरततवववदतहलतवहहवक , सथवईललकअदवलत , कल जवनव सवरपथमपककवरयकलसझहवररपपणरसमझझतसपरपह ह चवनसकसधलयसअपनयबमवदमतव , अनमभवकवउपयलगकरकसपयवसकरनवचववहए।जलउसकवसवरपथमकतरवयहह।इस पयवसममअसफलहलनसकसउपरवनतहयववववदकववववनशयकरनवचववहयस।परनतम उपरलककवयरवववहयय कवउलसख ( सअकसपमम ) पअचवटममअवशयहलनवचववहए , धजसममउसकस दवरवववववदकववववनशयकरनसकवकवरणपतवचलसकस।ऐसवउलसधखतनहलनसससयह पतयतहलगववकसथवईललकअदवलत , दवरवपककवरयकसबयचसमझझतवकरवनसकवकलई पयवसनहहवकयवगयव , जलउकअधधवनयमकसपववधवनयकवहननकरनसकससमकक हलगव। अततऐसयदशवमम ' पअचवटववधधकरपससमवनयनहहमवनवजवयसगव। ’ पकरणमम उतपनववधधकपशकववनधव र णउपरलकवणरन दवरववकयवजवतवहह। "

¶10

The above position of law has recently been reiterated by Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama (2022) 7 SCC 776 and in para 44 Court held as under:

¶11

“ 44. At the same time, the Division Bench in its impugned judgement also noted that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in the present case. This observation is correct since the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat does not indicate any attempt made by it to propose terms of settlement to the parties and their rejection. It states that once the

¶12

respondent and his guarantor did not appear, it adjudicated the dispute on merits in favour of the respondent. For the reasons mentioned earlier in this judgment, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have done so. Therefore, on this point only, we uphold the final judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the award dated 19 November 2014 of the Permanent Lok Adalat.”

¶13

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.05.2022 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to Permanent Lok Adalat to pass fresh order in terms of judgments passe by this Court in Nitin Kumar (supra) and Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra), preferably within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 6.2.2023 AK

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Patel Rashmi Harishchandra and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ajeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khushbu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Starion India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Girjesh Bahadur Srivastava Vs State of U.P.and Others