- (1.) This petition as originally drafted under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Stamp Reporter refused to accept the petition on the ground that a petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable, and the petitioner can only file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that he personally went to the Stamp Reporter and requested him to accept the petition, as framed, inasmuch as, there is no legal embargo in maintaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order of a tribunal.
(2.) He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & another Vs Chhabi Nath & Others, 2015 5 SCC 423 wherein, according to him, the legal embargo in maintaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is in respect of orders passed by the Civil Courts and not in respect of the order passed by a tribunal. He points out that Stamp Reporter refused to accept the petition and therefore, he was compelled to change the provision of law under which, the petition is being filed from that under Article 226 to Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) He further submitted that the petitioner is still seeking a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus, as the petition is directed against the order of Permanent Lok Adalat, which is acting as a tribunal and not a civil court.;