Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar) to decide the matter afresh. A further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner claims to be Secretary of Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata (Legal Aid) Samiti, 50 Arun Nagar, Etah. The petitioner claims that Nishulk Vidhik Sahayata Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) has been authorised by the U.P State Legal Services Authority vide its letter dated 14th March, 2005. The petitioner's case is that petitioner had given a representation to the District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar to refer compoundable offences/cases, which are to be decided at pre-litigation stage. The Additional District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar passed an order dated 22nd January, 2009 directing the subordinate officers to refer compoundable cases to the Samiti. The District Magistrate, Kashiram Nagar by an order passed on the next date, i.e., 23rd January, 2009 cancelled the letter dated 22nd January, 2009 issued by the Additional District Magistrate holding that the said letter was issued by mistake. The District Magistrate further held that no case be referred to Samiti since it is not authorised for it. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detail representation to the District Magistrate on 29th January, 2009 by speed post praying that the order dated 23rd January, 2009 be recalled. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the District Judge/Chairman, Zila Vidhik Sewa Pradhikaran observing that in event any case before the Court is to be referred for alternate dispute resolution in accordance with Section 89 of C.P.C., the same may be referred to the Samiti if it is permissible. The petitioner's case further is that Samiti is working in accordance with the spirit of Article 39Aof the Constitution of India as well as Section 89 of the C.P.C. and the aim of the Samiti is to minimise the litigation by pre-litigation settlement. The Samiti has also referred to a letter dated 30th December, 2004 issued by the National Legal Service Authority to the petitioner in reference to the proposal of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition, contended that petitioner being Secretary of the Society, which is engaged in free legal aid, it has right to get settled the disputes and the district administration is required to make reference of the disputes, which come before it and could be settled by compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Judge had already issued an order dated 12th July, 2006 directing all subordinate Courts to make reference for alternate dispute resolution under Section 89 of the C.P.C. to the Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the District Magistrate dated 23rd January, 2009 recalling the earlier order dated 22nd January, 2009 was not correct. Earlier the Additional District Magistrate has rightly directed the subordinate authorities to refer the disputes to petitioner's Samiti.
(3.) SRI Neeraj Upadhaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has no right to claim that disputes be referred by the district administration at pre-litigation stage to the Samiti. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that jurisdiction to settle the dispute even at pre- litigation stage vests with the Lok Adalats constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. There is no power or jurisdiction in any private society as claimed by the petitioner to insist that all disputes be referred to it. He submitted that private society/non- governmental organisations are authorised to participate in organising programmes for legal literacy awareness but they have no jurisdiction to settle any dispute. He referred to and relied on a scheme dated 21st April, 2003 issued by U.P. State Legal Services Authority for disposal of pre-litigation cases. A letter dated 17th July, 1998 issued by the Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority on the subject (accreditation of Non-Governmental organizations and Social Action Groups working in the field of Legal Awareness, Legal and Publicity Programmes and Para Legal Activities etc.) has also been relied. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel placed the aforesaid scheme and letter before the Court for its perusal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.;