Chattisgarh High CourtArshad Ahmad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 December, 2021Author:P. Sam KoshyBench:P. Sam Koshy1\n\n\n                                                                       NAFR\n            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR\n               WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5022 OF 2021\n      Arshad Ahmad, S/o Late I.A. Zanjani, aged about 54 years, R/o\nHouse No.05, Sun City Colony, Subham Vihar, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur,\nDistrict Bilaspur (C.G.)\n                                                        ... Petitioner\n                              versus\n1.    State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Law and\nJustice, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)\n2.    Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur (C.G.)\nthrough its Chairman.\n3.    Chhattisgarh State Legal Service Authority (under the Administrative\nControl of Chhattisgarh High Court). Through- Member Secretary, Vidhik\nSeva Marg, Bilaspur (C.G.)\n4.    Executive Engineer, Nagar Sambhag-2, Paschim CSPDCL, Nehru\nNagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)\n5.    Assistant Engineer, Nagar Sambhag-2, Paschim CSPDCL, Nehru\nNagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)\n                                                         ... RespondentsFor Petitioner           :        Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate.Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy\n                            Order on Board\n                             [09/12/2021]1.    The matter is today listed on the following defaults pointed out by\n\nthe Registry of this Court.(i)    The case is wrongly classified as Writ Petition (Civil) instead\n      of Writ Petition (227).(ii)   The Respondents No.1 to 3 have been made additional party\n      to the present Writ Petition.2.    So far as the Default No.1 is concerned, on due consideration the\n\nsame stands dismissed.3.    As regards the Default No.2, upon hearing the learned Counsel for\n\nthe Petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that Respondents No.1 to 3\n\nhave unnecessarily been made parties in the instant proceeding, as they\n\nwere neither the parties before the Court below nor is there any specific\n\nrelief sought for against them. Hence, the Default No.2 pointed out by the\n\nRegistry stands affirmed.24.     Though the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Sunil Kumar\n\nSoni, was directed to delete the Respondents No.1 to 3 from the array of\n\nparties in the present Writ Petition during the course of the day itself,\n\nhowever, subsequently the learned Counsel for the Petitioner informed\n\nthe Court Officer that he does not want to carry out the aforesaid\n\ncorrection/deletion. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the present Writ\n\nPetition as it is.5.     Challenge in the present Writ Petition seems to be the Award dated\n\n10.11.2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),\n\nBilaspur, in Case No.12/2019.6.     The only ground of challenge to the impugned Award is the\n\njurisdiction and competence in passing of the Award.7.     The ground raised by learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the\n\nPermanent Lok Adalat did not have the full quorum while deciding the\n\ndispute and therefore the impugned Award passed is void ab initio.8.     Learned Counsel for Petitioner drew the attention of this Court toSection 22Bof the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 which provides for\n\nthe establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and as per sub-section 2ofSection 22B, every Permanent Lok Adalat shall consist of a Chairman and\n\ntwo other persons with adequate experience. Learned Counsel for\n\nPetitioner therefore submits that it is mandatorily required that when the\n\nPermanent Lok Adalats are held, all the three Members should be present\n\nwhile hearing the matter. That, in the absence of any of the Members, the\n\nquorum would not be complete and the Forum would have thereby no\n\njurisdiction and competence to decide the matters.39.     Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that, in the instant case, the\n\nForum had only two Members on the date of passing of the impugned\n\nAward, as one of the permanent Members of the Forum had meanwhile\n\nexpired and the post was lying vacant. Therefore, in the light of the death\n\nof one of the Members, the Lok Adalat itself cannot be held with the\n\nremaining two Members.10.    It would be necessary at this juncture to take note of the fact that\n\ntheLegal Services Authorities Act, 1987or, for that matter, the National\n\nLegal Services Authority Rules so also the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other\n\nTerms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and other Persons)\n\nRules, 2003 do nowhere disclose so far as the Forum for deciding the\n\nmatter, much less nowhere do it envisage a Clause or Rule which\n\nprohibits the Lok Adalats to have a sitting without all the three Members\n\npresent.11.    On the contrary, if we look to sub-section 4ofSection 4of the\n\nPermanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of\n\nChairman and other Persons) Rules, 2003, it clearly reflects that in the\n\nevent of absence of the Chairman owing to any reason, be it - illness or\n\nany other cause, the senior-most person of the Permanent Lok Adalat\n\nshall be authorised to discharge the functions of the Chairman until the\n\nday on which the Chairman resumes the charge of his functions. This, in\n\nother words, means that in the event of absence of the Chairman for some\n\njustifiable reasons, the functioning of the Lok Adalat would not get stalled\n\nand the senior-most person would be authorised to proceed further and\n\ncontinue with the functioning of the Lok Adalat including conducting of\n\nregular sitting.412.   Moreover,Section 6of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and\n\n           Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and other Persons) Rules, 2003\n\n           also prescribes for the procedure for conducting of inquiry. In the said\n\n           Rule also it does not reflect that in the event of absence of one of the\n\n           Members, the functioning of the Permanent Lok Adalat would get defunct\n\n           and that it mandatorily requires all the three Members of the Permanent\n\n           Lok Adalat to remain present for having a sitting.13.   If the analogy which the learned Counsel for Petitioner is trying to\n\n           canvass is to be accepted, the very functioning of the establishment of the\n\n           Permanent Lok Adalat and the very object and intention behind the\n\n           provisions of law would get defeated. The Petitioner in the present Writ\n\n           Petition except for the jurisdictional part has not questioned the impugned\n\n           Award on its merits.14.   This Court given the facts and circumstances of the case does not\n\n           find any strong case made out by the Petitioner calling for interference\n\n           with the impugned Award and the present Writ Petition thus being devoid\n\n           of merits the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.15.   So far as the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for Petitioner\n\n           in support of his contentions are concerned, on due perusal of those\n\n           judgments it is clear that those judgments have been passed under the\n\n           entirely different factual backdrop and are nowhere touching the question\n\n           of Forum, particularly that of Permanent Lok Adalat is concerned.\n\n           Therefore, those judgments are distinguishable on their own facts itself.16.   Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.Sd/-(P. Sam Koshy)\n/sharad/                                                                  Judge