A composite petition challenging a Lok Adalat award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The court held the award was passed in the petitioner's presence with his acceptance, not in breach of natural justice or Section 19 of the Act.
The composite petition challenging the Lok Adalat award was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular S. No. 15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CM (M) 33/2021 CM (1022/2021)
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
… Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Advocate
V/s
Rumaisa Jan and another
… Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Omais Kawoosa, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
O R D E R 03-12-2021
CM (M) 33/2021 Mohammad Altaf Bhat
Page 2 of 3
fastened with the liability of paying maintenance towards respondent no. 1.
to on which he is affixing his thumb impression. The impugned award is also stated to be bad in view of the suit filed by respondent no. 1 seeking declaration that the petitioner herein is her father, to which the governmentdefendants, as also the petitioner herein, is stated to have filed written statement opposing the suit and praying for its dismissal and that the suit being pending adjudication.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The warp and woof under the shade of which the entire controversy raised in the instant petition is that the impugned award of the Lok Adalat has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without explaining him the contents of the award inasmuch as that the matter has been referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent of the petitioner against the mandate of section 19 of the Act and that the question of the parentage of the petitioner qua respondent no. 1 is sub judice in a suit filed by the respondent no. 1 before the civil court.
CM (M) 33/2021 Mohammad Altaf Bhat
Page 3 of 3
6. Perusal of the record, however, tends to show that the award has been passed in presence of the petitioner, and in recognition thereof the petitioner has affixed his thumb impression thereon signifying the fact that the matter had been referred to the Lok Adalat validly and legally, more so in view of the fact that the petitioner has not raised any objection in this regard before the Lok Adalat or lodged any protest thereof. The issue raised that the petitioner was neither explained the content of the award nor was same read over to him also pales into insignificance as the same are complicated disputed questions of fact of complex nature which for determination may require oral evidence to be taken and that the said disputed question of fact of complex nature may not appropriately be decided either in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction or under supervisory jurisdiction of this court.
7. The petition manifestly being misconceived entails dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE
Srinagar 03-12-2021 N Ahmad
NISSAR A BHAT 2021.12.04 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of the Lok Adalat infringes Section 19 of the J&K State Legal Services Authorities Act.
Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing and proper explanation of the award.
Whether the pending sub judice question of parentage precludes the award under Section 488 Cr.PC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
Rumaisa Jan
JAVED IQBAL WANI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
