Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Siddharth Singhal learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kartikey Saran and Shri Jahangir Haider, learned counsels for respondent nos.2 and 3.
(2.) The present petition is directed against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat dated 3.10.2018. The challenge is on the ground that the entire hearing of the matter had been carried out in the absence of the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat. The order passed by two non-judicial members of the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be termed to be an award within the meaning of Section 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter refer to 'the Act, 1987').
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the provisions of Section 22-E of the Act, 1987, which provides that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. Placing Section 22-B of the Act, 1987, it is contended that every Permanent Lok Adalat consists of a person who qualifies the requirement of being "Chairman" of the Permanent Lok Adalat and two other persons qualified for appointment as members of Permament Lok Adalat as per the qualification prescribed under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 22-B of the Act, 1987. A conjoint reading of Section 22-B(2) and Section 22-E(3) shows that no hearing can take place in the absence of the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Chairman is necessarily to remain available for any decision in a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat.;