BABU Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF all these cases, C. M. C. 123 of 1999 is not yet been admitted and service is complete in the other three cases. The common feature in these cases is that one and the same counsel was appearing for the different petitioners in the Electricity O. Ps. involved in these cases in the Addl. District Court, Parur and that the Kerala State Electricity Board is the respondent in all these cases. The contentions raised by the petitioners in all these cases is more or less similar and hence they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners' contention is that when the case came up before the Lok-Adalath on 21. 1. 1998 the learned Addl. District Judge was also present to mediate and settle the cases and that when E. O. P. 40 of 1993 was taken up first the learned judge unilaterally declared that awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be a reasonable compensation and that the client should not have been greedy. THE imputation was objected to by the counsel and there ensured a verbal altercation. THE trial judge observed that he would not award any enhanced compensation on any of the matters moved by the counsel and also that all claims preferred by the counsel contained inflated and excessive claims. THE case was adjourned with advice to the parties to settle the matter and the judge also mentioned that if it was not settled, there will not be any enhancement at all.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the Electricity board appearing in CMCs 112 and 113 of 1999 also. According to him there was no such incident as alleged in the petition. In view of the clear denial of the allegations in the petition by the learned District Judge I am not inclined to make a transfer of the case to any other Court. Because judicial officers are also expected to be involved in the conduct of Lok-Adalaths, there may be occasions for them to make suggestions with regard to amounts payable or about possible course of settlement. In fact, they are expected to do so. When any such suggestions are made, it does not at all indicate that the judge would be inclined to stand by such observations when cases are decided on the merit. If transfers as sought for herein are allowed, that will create a bad precedent and set a bad trend. In the circumstances, the petitioners are dismissed. It is expected that the Addl. District Judge, Parur will dispose of the cases in a totally unprejudiced manner and without in any way relying on the possible suggestions made by him during the holding of the Adalaths and would decide the cases purely based on merits and according to the evidence adduced in the case. . .