Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Dharmendra Srivastava for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat dated 19.12.2017 passed in Permanent Lok Adalat Application No. 48 of 2016 by which application of Rakesh Kumar, respondent-3 has been allowed and it has been held that petitioner-department has already obtained outstanding dues before replacing the meter of consumer as such they are not entitled to realize this amount again after installing new meter to the consumer on 9.6.2015.
(3.) Permanent Lok Adalat has also awarded Rs. 2000/- as cost to be paid by the petitioner to respondent-3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 21 (C) of Legal Services Authority of India Act, 1987, Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. The petitioner has not given any consent for passing award rather the petitioner has clearly disputing the claim of respondent-3 and filed written statement. Therefore, the award of permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner has taken a definite case that before replacing the meter, reading of replaced meter was 6557 unit. Since the bill relating to replaced meter has not been paid as such it was included in the reading of new meter and legally it is liable to be included. This fact has not been considered by Permanent Lok Adalat rather award has been passed.;