NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. KARTIK GORAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, has decided the dispute between the parties, on merits, vide order dated December 4, 2008, passed in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 195 of 2008, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition and it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the issue, on merits, without consent of the present petitioner and the present petitioner has never given any consent to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, to decide the dispute between the parties, on merits. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat at Jamshedpur has lost sight of the fact that its predominant role is of a conciliator and not of an adjudicator. The Permanent Lok Adalat cannot wear the robe of the court from the very threshold of the dispute and has also relied upon a 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 : (2009 (1) AIR-Jhar R 77, and a decision, rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No, 1449 of 2009 dated April 9, 2009 and upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, as reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 : AIR 2008 SC 1209 and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha, as reported in (2008) 7 SCC 454 : AIR 2008 SC 2398, and submitted that the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, whereby, on merits, the case has been decided, deserves to be quashed and set aside, since no procedure has been followed, as laid down under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (in short "the Act, 1987").

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that because of Section 22-E of the Act, 1987, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, is true, correct and in consonance with the law.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the decision, rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1449 of 2008 dated April 9, 2009, as well as looking to 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 : 2009 (1) AIR Jhar R 77, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 195 of 2008, dated December 4. 2008, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition, mainly for the reason that it has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide a dispute between the patties, on merits without there being written consent for taking a decision, on merits, and also on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not followed the provisions of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987, as per the decision, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court.