STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly against a decision rendered by Permanent Lok Adalat at Dhanbad, on merits, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007 dated 8th February, 2008 (Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition).

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner -bank submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat ought not to have decided, on merits, the claim between the parties by exercising power, jurisdiction and authority under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1987'). In fact, there is no willingness, on the part of the petitioner -bank to pursue the matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat in the Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a loan amount of Rs. 2,25,000/ - (Two lacs twenty five thousand) was received by the respondent from the State Bank of India towards housing loan in the year, 1995 with an interest @ 11% per annum, having equal monthly installment of Rs. 3079/ - per month, on the assessable amount. Instead of making payment of the outstanding amount, an application was preferred by the respondent before Permanent Lok Adalat at Dhanbad, State of Jharkhand and Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007 was thus instituted. Upon receipt of the notice, reply was given by petitioner -bank that the borrower must produce documents and receipts for the amount deposited, as alleged by him in his application. It is stated that the bank is not liable to credit the amount for which no deposit receipt is produced nor it is a case of deficiency of services and ultimately it was stated before Permanent Lok Adalat that the application preferred by the respondent deserves to be dismissed with cost. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Permanent Lok Adalat has not followed the proper procedure which is envisaged under Section 22 -C of the Act 1987. Firstly it is not the role of Permanent Lok Adalat that it should decide on merits the dispute between the parties. It is further stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat, as the conciliator, must put all efforts to settle the dispute, between the parties as per Sub -section 7 of Section 22 -C of the Act 1987, which empowers that the settlement ought to have been presented before the parties by the Permanent Lok Adalat so that the petitioner -bank can think upon it and can give its suggestion for settlement. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that from the very beginning, approach of the Permanent Lok Adalat is not that of a conciliator, but, it was playing role of adjudicatory authority, which is against the provisions of Section 22 -C of the Act 1987 and therefore the claim between the parties decided on merits like a judgment, by the Permanent Lok Adalat, dated 8th February, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside, with cost.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by a division bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. The State of Jharkhand as reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 513, and pointed out that the Permanent Lok Adalat instead of deciding the disputes on merits, first of all should have asked for the terms of settlements to the parties, as required in Sub -section 7 of Section 22 -C of the Act, 1987. Predominantly the role of Permanent Lok Adalat is like a conciliator and not like an adjudicating authority. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Bank is neither ready nor willing to go before the Permanent Lok Adalat for getting the dispute adjudicated, where the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable nor the Indian Evidence Act is applicable nor the order is made appellable. Petitioner is neither willing for adjudication of the dispute on merits nor it is willing to settle the matter, unless reasonable figure of amount for settlement is offered by the original applicant or by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The petitioner, is also not binding itself, in absence of any suggestions, either from Permanent Lok Adalat or from the private respondent.