ABHINASH KUMAR Vs. RAMASHISH PRASAD
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-11-35
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 05,2018

Abhinash Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
Ramashish Prasad Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JALOUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved of Award dated 08.07.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat held at Civil Court, Dhanbad in M.V. Claim Case No.282 of 2012.
(2.)Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was defendant no.3 in M.V. Claim Case No.282 of 2012 and he had filed his objection, still, ignoring his objection on the application of the claimants who are parents of the deceased an award was prepared which was signed on 08.07.2017. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition challenging the Award dated 08.07.2017, referring to the decision in "Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others reported in, 2003 6 SCC 675", the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through judicial pronouncements now the thin line separating the powers and jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has almost been obliterated and while so, this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.
(3.)Under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 every award of the Lok Adalat under the Act made in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. Under sub-section 1 to section 21 of the Act a legal fiction has been created whereby award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and under section 22 the Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall have requisite powers to specify its own procedure (sub-section 2), besides powers vested in it as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the matters mentioned in sub-section (1). Reliance on the decision in "Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others" is wholly misconceived. In "State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others reported in, 2008 2 SCC 660", the Supreme Court has held that an Award under section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is final and can be challenged through a petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is only such Award which has become final and binding that can be challenged in a petition under Article 226/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but not an Award which has not been signed by a party and thus, is not final and binding on such party. The petitioner who is O.P. No.3 has not signed the Award. He claims that he is the husband of the deceased and he has also filed M.A.C.T. Case No.122/2011.The Award dated 08.07.2017 records that the claim has been settled with O.P. No.2. Evidently, the Award dated 08.07.2017 is not binding on the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot challenge the said Award by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.