Executive Officer And Ors vs Permanent Lok Adalat And Ors

The matter comes up in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution.

This Court finding that the issue involved in the present writ petition can be decided at this stage accordingly both counsel were heard on merit.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Municipal Board assailing the order passed by the permanent Lok Adalat whereby the permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 22.10.2018 has directed the Executive Engineer and the Municipal Board to get the drain covered within one month. The compensation of amount of Rs. 50,000/- has also been directed to be paid to the complainant and further it has been directed that if the drain is not covered within one month, a sum of Rs. 500/- per day shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. A cost of Rs.2500/- has also been directed to be paid.

Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board submits that the compensation awarded is on much higher side and Municipal Board does not have the funds to pay the same.

I have perused the award passed by the permanent Lok Adalat. I find that the Municipal Board had recovered a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as development charges from the respondent and the drain which is running in front of the plot of the respondent has not been covered as per the Act of 2009. The Municipal Board is duty bound to cover the drain and the cost of the expenditure has to be borne from the funds which they collect by way of development charges.

It is also noticed that the property, which is in question, is a commercial land and registry for the property was made by the Municipal Board in favour of the applicant on 02.04.2014 but he has preferred a complaint as there is no access to the plot on account of drain having not been covered by the Municipal Board.

It is also noticed that the respondent had made several applications to the Municipal Board from 2017 upto 2018 for getting the drain covered but to no avail. Taking into consideration all the aspects the permanent Lok Adalat had issued notices and as in terms of the Legal Services Authority Act, it was for the Municipal Board to have taken the clue and immediately covered the drain but it seems that the drain was not covered and the permanent Lok Adalat had to exercise its power under Section 22(B) of the Act and pass a mandatory order.

In the circumstances if a compensation has been directed to be awarded no errors can be said to have been committed by the permanent Lok Adalat.

This Court also noticed that the Municipal Board instead of implementing the order of the permanent Lok Adalat had preferred the writ petition and the order has been stayed.

Thus, if even today the drain has not been covered the duty of the Municipal Board is to see that their citizens are not harassed. Instead of getting the construction of covering the drain, the Municipal Board is engaged in litigation for normal reasons.

In the circumstances while upholding the order passed by the permanent Lok Adalat, the Municipal Board is directed to implement the order and complete the construction of covering of the drain positively within one month from today.

Apart from the observation made by the permanent Lok Adalat, if the order is not complied with the respondent shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chairman of the Municipal Board who is personally liable for the implementation of the order of the permanent Lok Adalat.

The compensation and the amount as directed by the permanent Lok Adalat shall also be paid to respondent within said period without fail.

The Municipal Board shall be free to recover the said cost from the concerned Executive Engineer who is responsible to get the drain covered.

The writ petition is dismissed.