LAWS(J&K)-2018-3-52

CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. GHULAM AHMAD SHEIKH

Decided On March 26, 2018
Chief Engineer (Pwd)RAndB; And Others Appellant
V/S
Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 29-03-2017 & 25-05-2017 passed by the Chairman Tehsil Legal Services Committee, Handwara, (respondent No.1), inter alia, on the grounds that although the parties did not arrive at any settlement, yet the Chairman Legal Services Authority, without any jurisdiction, determined the issue by assuming unto himself the powers of a Civil Court. It is stated that in terms of the section 18(4) of the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act 1997 (for short Act of 1997), the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is limited to the extent of seeking a settlement or compromise between the parties and not to determine the issue on evidence or merit. The petitioners, while referring to a full bench decision of the apex Court delivered in case titled State of Punjab and another versus Jalore Singh & another, reported in 2008 ACJ 2874, have stated that the settled law is that the functions of the Lok Adalat are conciliatory and Lok Adalats do not enjoy adjudicatory powers. The petitioners have proceeded to state that the award of the Lok Adalat is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court. It is well settled position of law that if the case does not involve settlement or compromise, the Lok Adalat cannot dispose of the same. To substantiate so, the petitioners have referred to and relied on the law laid down in the case titled State of Punjab versus Pholan Rani & others, reported in AIR 2007 SCC 555.

(2.) The petitioners have further pleaded in the petition that the respondent No.1 had to restrict himself to the mandate of the Act of 1997 but he considered and concluded the case on the basis of the documents, which, allegedly, indicate that the amount is due to the applicants and directed the petitioner No.3 herein to release the amount of Rs. 33/- lacs. Thus, what is manifest is that no compromise or settlement was arrived at between the parties.

(3.) The petitioners have averred further that the procedure adopted by the respondent No.1, in passing the impugned orders, is novel, inasmuch as, he was supposed to pass an award in terms of section 20 of the Act of 1997, which has not been done by the Authority. The impugned orders are beyond jurisdiction and these cannot sustain in the eyes of law. In the end, the petitioners have stated and submitted that the orders, impugned herein, being bad in law and the Lok Adalat having no jurisdiction to entertain the case and pass such orders, therefore, this Court may set aside the impugned orders by allowing the writ petition and the application, filed by the respondents, at the pre-litigation stage, seeking settlement, be dismissed.