MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DHANBAD vs RANJIT KUMAR SINHA

Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, counsel assisted by Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the writ petitioner for the following reliefs:

a) “For quashing the order dated 05.04.2007 passed in P.L. Case No.1251/2004 by the Court of Permanent LokAdalat, Dhanbad whereby and

where under the petition for review filed on behalf of the petitioner for review of the order/Award dated 15.06.2005 passed by the Permanent

LokAdalat has been rejected, as the Learned Court has failed to appreciate that the order/award dated 15.06.2005 passed by the Learned Court

suffers from error on the face of record and the impugned order if not reviewed in the facts and circumstances of the case will lead to miscarriage of

justice.

b) For quashing the order/award dated 15.06.2005 passed by the Permanent LokAdalat, Dhanbad where under the Learned Court had directed the

petitioner herein to make payment of Rs.93,000/- as outstanding legal dues payable to the contractor/plaintiff/respondent herein as the said award is

not proper in the eye of law in view of categorical statements made in the written show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party/ petitioner herein

before the Learned Court clearly alleging that the amount claimed on behalf of the plaintiff/contractor was a disputed civil claim and the Learned

Court in spite of the same, proceeded to entertain the P.L. Case before it an exercise without jurisdiction in a disputed matter unlikely to be

compromised between the parties resulting in grave miscarriage of justice as the legally admitted dues of the contractor had already been paid on

behalf of the petitioner i.e. MADA herein and as such any imaginary amount as awarded by the Learned Court would result in payment of a sum

which is not legally due to the petitioner and contrary to the law.â€​

On facts, counsel for the petitioner submits as under:-

a. An application was filed before the Permanent LokAdalatat, Dhanbad by the respondent which was numbered as Pre-Litigation Case No.1251 of

2004 wherein the respondent made a claim of Rs.6 lakhs and odd in connection with execution of certain works executed pursuant to a contract of the

year, 1995-96.

b. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the Permanent LokAdalat and the petitioner had filed the show-cause before the authority and in the show-

cause, the petitioner had raised serious dispute regarding the legality and validity of the claim of the Respondent and also raised plea that the claim

itself was hopelessly time barred.

c. The petitioner in the show-cause had also mentioned that the issue involved in the matter could be decided only by a civil suit. At para 23 of the

show-cause reply, the petitioner has stated that admittedly work of Rs.1,43,012/- only was done by the petitioner and a total sum of Rs.90,875/- was

paid and the balance was Rs.53,009/-, but the respondent had not returned the materials amounting to Rs.8,29,260/- and therefore, a prayer was made

to dismiss the application.

d. By taking to the order-sheet of Permanent LokAdalat, the counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order date 16.10.2004 it appears that a

joint petition was filed stating that the parties are negotiating for a compromise and formal compromise petition was likely to be filed and thereafter

vide order dated 18.10.2004 it appears that the counsel for the petitioner filed a petition that all the dues of the respondent will be paid after verification

of Records. Thereafter on 24.12.2004 a petition was filed by the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner mentioning that upon verification of

records, the amount comes to Rs.93, 000/- and the amount can be paid after deduction of income tax and sales tax and in the said petition a prayer

was made for grant of 15 days time for making final payment. This petition is annexed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. A copy of this petition was

handed over to the counsel for the respondent and it was also mentioned in order dated 24.12.2004.

e. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition was filed by the Advocate and not signed by any of the officers of the petitioner.

 However, during the course of argument the counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to disown this petition filed by their Advocate before the

court below and claimed that this amount of Rs.93, 000/- which was mentioned in Annexure-6 was mentioned inadvertently without actual calculation

as born out from the records.

f. While drawing the attention to the order-sheet, the counsel submits that vide order dated 18.10.2004, the respondent had given a calculation of

Rs.93, 000/- and handed over the same to the counsel for the petitioner and the matter was posted on 22.12.2004. On 22.12.2004, the matter was

adjourned to 24.12.2004 and on 24.12.2004 this petition was filed on behalf of the Advocate of the petitioner that upon verification of record an

amount of Rs.93, 000/- was found payable and from the perusal of the order dated 24.12.2004 it appears that time was allowed to the petitioner to

make payment of the amount to the Respondent.

g. Counsel for the petitioner further refers to the order-sheet and submits that thereafter, certain dates were granted but inspite of that the payment

having not been made, a petition was filed by the Respondent for passing final order in terms of the amount of the settlement amount of Rs. 93,000/-

which has been arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which, the impugned order  dated 15.06.2005, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ

petition, has been passed.

h. After passing of the order dated 15.06.2005 , the execution case was filed by the respondent and thereafter the petitioner filed review petition

before the Permanent  LokAdalat for review of order dated 15.06.2005 which has been dismissed as not maintainable by another impugned order as

contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

i. The counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2010 (3) JLJR 313 submits that the Permanent

LokAdalat could not have exercised the powers under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 by deciding the case on

merit unless there is a written consent obtained by both the parties and steps have been taken under sub-section (1) to (7) of Section 22-C and the

terms of settlement is forwarded by the Permanent LokAdalat itself to the parties.

j. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2009 (2) JLJR 684 on the scope and applicability of Section 22 of Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987.

k. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 420 and submits that in the matter where the statute does not

provide for review, in such circumstances also the Review Petition is maintainable when it is required to be exercised for the ends of justice. He

further submits that although power of review has not been provided under Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 but still in the light of the said judgment

the Permanent LokAdalat ought to have entertained the review petition under the facts and circumstances of this case.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits as under:-

a) From the perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is the final order passed by the Permanent LokAdalat

and from the perusal of the records of the case it appears that the Permanent LokAdalat has not exercised the power under sub-section (8) of Section

22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 but the Permanent LokAdalat has simply passed the order for payment of the amount which was

admittedly payable by the petitioner to the respondent.

b) Although the claim of the applicant was to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs and odd but still he had agreed for receiving the payment of Rs.93,000/- only. He

submits that after the matter was filed before the Permanent LokAdalat, the parties had admittedly sat together under due intimation of Permanent

LokAdalat as is apparent from the order sheet itself. Thereafter, from verification of the record, it was found that 93,000/- only was payable to the

respondent and accordingly vide petition as mentioned in order dated 18.10.2004, the respondent had given a calculation of Rs.93,000/- and handed

over the same to the counsel for the petitioner and the matter was posted on 22.12.2004. On 22.12.2004, the matter was adjourned to 24.12.2004 and

on 24.12.2004 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner by the advocate appearing for the petitioner that upon verification of record an amount of

Rs.93,000/- was found payable and from the perusal of the order dated 24.12.2004 it appears that time was allowed to the petitioner to make payment

of the amount to the Respondent. It is submitted that when payment was not made the final order as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition was

passed.

c) Counsel for the petitioner further refers to the order-sheet and submits that after 24.12.2014, certain dates were granted to the petitioner, but inspite

of that, payment having not been made, the impugned order dated 15.06.2005, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition was passed.

d) He submits that the order impugned, as contained in Annexure-2, is not an order under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority

Act, 1987 therefore, the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner on the point of interpretation and applicability of section 22-C of the

said Act have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case.

e) Counsel for the respondents also submits that so far as review is concerned, there is no provision for review under the provisions of Legal Services

Authority Act, 1987 and accordingly, the power of review could not have been exercised by the permanent LokAdalat.

f) He further submits that power of review is a creature of statue and in absence of such power the Permanent LokAdalat has rightly rejected the

Review Petition as not maintainable vide impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

g) Without prejudice to this contention, the counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.14755

of 2009 wherein the scope of review and the circumstances under which the review petition can be filed as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in AIR 2013 SC 3301 has been considered and followed. He submits that none of the circumstances specified herein call for the exercise of any

so called inherent power of review by the Permanent LokAdalat.

h) He also points out that an order dated 07.02.2018 was passed by this Court wherein the counsel for the petitioner had prayed for one week time to

file the petition for review which was filed by the petitioner before the lower court as well as its reply which was filed by the respondent before the

Permanent LokAdalat for better appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, but in spite of order dated 07.02.2018, the said documents

were not brought on record and in absence of the said documents, the order of review itself cannot be examined in exercise of powers under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

i) The counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 (3) JLJR 213 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court

wherein the conflicting view in connection with sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act has been considered and it has been held after considering

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463 that only if the parties fail to reach an agreement by conciliation, the

Permanent LokAdalat mutates into an adjudicatory body by deciding the dispute. He further submits that in the instant case, the conciliation by way of

sitting between the parties had succeeded by coming to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.93,000/- was payable to the respondent and accordingly,

there was no occasion for the Permanent LokAdalat to enter into dispute under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C and decide the case on merits and

accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 has not been passed under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services

Authority Act, 1987.

j) Counsel for the respondent also submits that otherwise also no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner as the petitioner has not challenged the

decree drawn pursuant to the main award and they have simply challenged the award and the order rejecting the review petition.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to

the writ petitioner under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on account of the following facts and reasons:

a) From the perusal of the case record it appears that the claim was filed by the respondent before Permanent LokAdalat and thereafter, a response

to it was also filed by the petitioner wherein although the petitioner had raised the point of limitation and had disputed the claim of the petitioner, the

petitioner at para 23 of its reply had submitted that an amount of Rs.53,009/- was still payable to the applicant although the applicant had not returned

the materials amounting to Rs.8,29,260/-.Thereafter, from the records of the case it appears that the parties had tried to settle the matter by sitting

amongst themselves and they had arrived at a conclusion that an amount of Rs.93,000/- is payable to the Respondent. Vide order dated 18.10.2004, a

petition was filed by the Respondent claiming an amount of Rs.93, 000/- on the basis of settlement and verification of records to which the petitioner

was to file its response. Thereafter, on 24.12.2004 the petition as contained in annexure-6 to the writ petition was filed by the counsel for the petitioner

mentioning that upon verification of records, the amount comes to Rs.93,000/- and that the petitioner was willing to pay the amount if 15 days’

time is granted for final payment.

b) Although it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that this particular petition dated 24.12.2004 was not filed under the signature of

any of the officers of the petitioner but at the same time, the petitioner has not been able to disown it and has simply submitted that there was

calculation error and the amount mentioned as 93,000/- was not correct.

c) From the perusal of the case, it appears that the amount of Rs.93,000/- stood admitted before the Permanent LokAdalat and the petitioner himself

had prayed for 15 days time for making final payment but that having not been paid, ultimately the Permanent LokAdalat passed the impugned order

directing the petitioner to make payment and thereafter, the decree was drawn.

d) This Court further finds that inspite of order dated 07.02.2018, the necessary petition and reply which was filed for review of the order as contained

in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has not been filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the grounds of review is not available for perusal of this court.

e) Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that in absence of any specific power of review conferred under the provisions of Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987, the Permanent LokAdalat does not have the jurisdiction to review its orders. Accordingly, the impugned order as

contained in Annexure-1 has been rightly passed by holding that the review itself is not maintainable. So far as the judgment passed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 420 relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the same was in relation to an award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal which was an ex-parte award and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had the ancillary or incidental powers to

do complete justice between the parties to set-aside the ex-parte award. The facts and circumstances which are involved in this case are totally

different. Moreover the grounds of review having not been filed by the petitioner inspite of specific order passed to that effect, this court is not in a

position to exercise its powers of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the other judgments which have been relied

upon by the counsel for the petitioner on the point of exercise of power under section 22 C (8) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 are concerned,

the same have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case as this court is of the considered view that the learned Permanent

LokAdalat has not exercised its powers of adjudication under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The Permanent

LokAdalat has merely given a time frame for payment of the amount of Rs.93,000/- which was arrived between the parties during the pendency of

the case to be payable to the respondent for which specific petition was filed by the respondent and responded by the petitioner. The petitioner during

course of argument has not disowned the reply filed by its Advocate and his only ground is that there was a calculation mistake in the said petition.

The petitioner having responded to the petition filed by the respondent to the settled amount of Rs.93,000/- , it is not open to the petitioner to challenge

the same on the ground of alleged calculation mistake. Moreover the grounds of review has not been filed to apprise this court as to the grounds on

which the review petition was filed so that it could transpire as to how the petitioner reacted to the order passed by Permanent LokAdalat at the first

instance.

Thus this court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders so as to exercise its powers under article 226 or 227 of the

Constitution of India, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.