Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) AT the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 in caveat, while seeking to support the impugned award made by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur has raised an objection that this writ petition is not maintainable.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that though for the proceedings under Chapter -VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ( 'the Act ') no appeal lies to any Court against the award of Lok Adalat per Sub -section (2) of Section 21 but then, the present one had been the proceedings under Chapter VIA of the Act; and no such bar having been spelt out in relation to the award of Permanent Lok Adalat, the Petitioner ought to have taken recourse to the appropriate remedy against the award impugned. The objection raised on behalf of the Respondent does not carry even a technical value what to say of substance. Per Sub -section (1) of Section 22E of the Act, the award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties; and, again, per Sub -section (4) of Section 22E ibid, the award of Permanent Lok Adalat is final and is not open to be questioned in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. No other statutory provision has been pointed out whereby such award of Permanent Lok Adalat could be challenged in appeal or revision or the like. Looking to the scheme of Chapter VIA of the Act and the nature of award impugned, the Petitioner cannot be faulted in seeking to assail the same by way of this writ petition. The objection cannot sustain itself and stands rejected.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel on admission and on the prayer for interim relief.;