JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BASANTESHWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although, respondent was noticed and had appeared through his counsel, but counter affidavit has not been filed on his behalf and today, no one appears to contest the case on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in PLA Case No. 898 of 2007 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has imposed a compensation of Rs. 2000/- upon the petitioner to be paid to the respondent within three months of the order with further interest @ 10 % per annum on failing to pay the compensation amount and also order for restoration of the electric connection.

(3.) According to the petitioner the instant dispute was raised in Pre Litigative Case being PLA Case No. 898 of 2007 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in respect of consumer of the petitioner-Board having meter no. 12976 installed at his residential premises. The respondent's connection was disconnected in March, 1993 on failure to pay outstanding bill of Rs. 8,101.24. A raid was conducted by the officials of the Board and respondent was found utilizing power by illegal means and tampering the meter and thus, a criminal case under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act was lodged on 21.06.1993 against the respondent. Subsequently a complaint case was filed by the petitioner-Board against the respondent and on contest the respondent was acquitted in G.R.C. Case No. 1824 of 1993 vide judgment dated 15.01.1999. The electric line of the respondent was restored and simultaneously, the respondent deposited the outstanding energy bill of Rs. 8,131.24/- together with Rs. 30.00/- as connection charges. However, again the respondent was found defaulting in payment of regular electric bills and in course of raid, he was found using electricity by all fake and hooking method direct from the main line, therefore, his electric connection was again disconnected for having not paid outstanding electric dues. Thereafter, the respondent has raised the grievance against the outstanding bill raised by the petitioner-Board and Pre Litigative Case being P.L.A. Case No. 898 of 2007 was filed for directing the opposite party/petitioner herein to restore his electric connection and also for payment of compensation for harassment and cost of litigation. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner-Board appeared on notice and filed written statement and seriously contested the case and explained the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not frame any terms of settlement or offer it to the rival parties to agree upon a compromise in terms of Section 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, instead straightway proceeded to decide the dispute on merit under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Permanent Lok Adalat, thereafter, allowed the respondent to adduce the evidences and decided the issue in favour of the respondent herein by imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- in a wholly erroneous manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was, however, not within the jurisdiction of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat and therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat should not have entertained the dispute and decided on merit in view of the specific provision contained under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 wherein if the matter is related to the offence, the Permanent Lok Adalat should not decide the dispute on merit. In the instant case the claim raised by the respondent was very much in relation to the acts for which a criminal case has earlier been lodged against the respondent by the petitioner-Board. Moreover in view of the settled legal position laid down by this Court in connection with interpretation of Section 22(C)(4) to (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. M/s S. N. Singh & Brothers, Jamshedpur, 2010 3 JCR 496 (Jhr), the Permanent Lok Adalat before deciding the dispute on merit, should make an attempt for conciliation and further frame terms of settlement and offer it to the rival parties to arrive at an agreed settlement and only upon failure to do so, can proceed to decide the dispute on merit. In the present case when this claim was hotly contested by the petitioner-Board, the Permanent Lok Adalat clearly committed serious error and acted beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the dispute on merit which requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under extraordinary jurisdiction.