ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dtd. 3/12/2018, passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna in P.L.A. Case No. 8/2018 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 2 has been directed to remove the mobile tower installed on the house of the Respondent No. 3.

(2.) The short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly, the petitioner was not made a party to the said P.L.A. Case No. 8/2018, instituted at the instance of the Respondent no. 1 and secondly, the dispute in question does not fall within the purview of Sec. 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1987"). Another aspect of the matter, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not made a party before the learned Court of Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, there was no occasion for conduct of any conciliation proceedings, in between the parties, as such, on this ground as well, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patna, dtd. 3/12/2018 is perverse and fit to be set aside. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Sec. 22A of the Act, 1987, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama, reported in (2022) 7SCC 776, to contend that first of all, though the Permanent Lok Adalats are vested with adjudicatory functions under the Act, 1987, but the disputes, which can be adjudicated upon, should be pertaining to public utility services and secondly, conciliation proceedings under Sec. 22-C of the Act, 1987 are mandatory in nature, which cannot be bypassed by the Permanent Lok Adalats.