Telangana High Court
WP/28677/2008 of Yerra Satyanarayana Vs V.V. Raghava Reddy on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28677 of 2008 Between: Yerra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 28677 of 2008
Between:
Yerra Satyanarayana S/o. Late Tata RaoR/o. D.o 28-1-42/1, Besides Swathi Tiffins Devi Chowk, Rajahmundry,East Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
V.V. Raghava Reddy S/o. Basava Raju, HinduR/o. D.No. 9-14-21, Chandra Choultry Street, Rajahmundry, EastGodavari District.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly onein the nature of the writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the LokAdalat, Rajahmundry, dt.23-9-2008 as arbitrary illegal, unjust andopposed to all cannons of law and justice and consequently set asidethe award dt. 22-10-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat, Rajahmundry inPLC No. 378 of 2007.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.S.ANAND
Counsel for the Respondent No.: .
The Court made the following :
ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed)
This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare theorder of the Lok Adalat, Rajahmundry, dated 23-09-2008 asarbitrary illegal, unjust and opposed to all cannons of law andjustice, and consequently, to set aside the award dated 22-10-2007passed by the Lok Adalat, Rajahmundry in PLC No. 378 of 2007.
The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the owner ofthe shop. Both the parties have appeared before the Lok Adalat,represented by their respective counsel, and filed a compromisememo. The said compromise was taken into account andaccordingly the award was passed. The award contemplates thatthe tenant should vacate the premises by 31-05-2008 and he alsoagreed to pay arrears of rent from March, 2007 on or before 31-12-2007. It was also agreed by the respondent that an amountof Rs.1,15,000/- will be paid to the petitioner on or before 31-05-2008 with interest. When both the parties have representedby their counsel and affixed their signatures, the Lok Adalatpassed the award.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this awardis a prelitigation conciliation and settlement, and he has drawn ourattention to Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 (for brevity ‘the Act’) which deals with public utility service. Section 22C of the Act deals with cognizance of cases bypermanent Lok Adalat which reads as follows:
“22C Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an applicationto the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement ofdispute:
Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall nothave jurisdiction in respect of any matter relatingto an offence not compoundable under any law:
Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalatshall also not have jurisdiction in the matterwhere the value of the property in disputeexceeds ten lakh rupees:
Provided also that the Central Government, may,by notification, increase the limit of ten lakhrupees specified in the second proviso inconsultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under sub-sec.(1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to thatapplication shall invoke jurisdiction of any courtin the same dispute.
(3) Where an application is made to a PermanentLok Adalat under sub-sec. (1), it
(a) shall direct each party to the application to filebefore it a written statement, stating therein thefacts and nature of dispute under the application,points or issues in such dispute and groundsrelied in support of, or in opposition to such,points or issues, as the case may be, and suchparty may supplement such statement with anydocument and other evidence which such partydeems appropriate in proof of such facts andgrounds and shall send a copy of such statementtogether with a copy of such document and otherevidence, if any, to each of the parties to theapplication; (b) may require any party to the application to fileadditional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
(c) shall communicate any document orstatement received by it from any party to theapplication to the other party, to enable suchother party to present reply thereto.
(4) When statement, additional statement andreply, if any, have been filed under sub-sec. (3),to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, itshall conduct conciliation proceedings betweenthe parties to the application in such manner as itthinks appropriate taking into account thecircumstances of the dispute.
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, duringconduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-sec. (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reachan amicable settlement of the dispute in anindependent and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of every party to theapplication to cooperate in good faith with thePermanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of thedispute relating to the application and to complywith the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat toproduce evidence and other related documentsbefore it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in theaforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinionthat there exist elements of settlement in suchproceedings which may be acceptable to theparties, it may formulate the terms of a possiblesettlement of the dispute and give to the partiesconcerned for their observations and in case theparties reach at an agreement on the settlementof the dispute, they shall sign the settlementagreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shallpass an award in terms thereof and furnish acopy of the same to each of the parties concerned.
(8) Where the parties fail to reach at anagreement under sub-sec. (7), the PermanentLok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate toany offence, decide the dispute.”
It is his contention that this is a prelitigation conciliation andsettlement and it only relates to the public utility services since thedispute is between the tenant and the landlord, it stands outsidescope of prelitigation and conciliation settlement. The fraud hasbeen exerted by the landlord and the petitioner having not aware ofthis act has affixed his signatures and the Lok Adalat has nojurisdiction to entertain the matter between the tenant andlandlord.
Analysis
We have examined the position under Section 22C of theAct. When once the petitioner appeared before the Lok Adalat andaffixed his signatures represented by his counsel, he cannot turnaround and say that the award was vitiated by fraud. Evenotherwise, when the time was granted to vacate the premises onor before 31-05-2008, he has not vacated and now the writ petitionis filed after a lapse of seven months. In the circumstances, weare not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, havingregard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the time isextended to vacate the premises by four weeks from today. Noorder as to costs.
____________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
30[th] December, 2008
SKM
______________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J