- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against an order dated 14th March, 2008 and the consequent award/decree dated 24th March, 2008, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 260 of 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of present petition), whereby, the supplementary bill issued by the present petitioners under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been quashed and a cost of Rs.10,000/ - has been awarded.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: (i) It appears that: the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, in exercise of the powers under Section 22 -C(8) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, is patently erroneous and dehors the power, jurisdiction and authority of the Permanent Lok Adalat. (ii) It also appears from the facts of the case that a raid was carried out by the petitioner - Board upon the premises of respondent no.2 and it was found out that theft of electricity has been committed by respondent no.2 and, therefore, under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 , especially under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , a supplementary bill was issued. This order is an appellable order under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 . Thus, without application of mind by the Permanent Lok Adalat and without looking to the power, jurisdiction and authority of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the dispute between the parties has been adjudicated upon, which is a clear breach of Sub -section (7) of Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Likewise, there is also a breach of Sub -section (8) of Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. (iii) It has already been decided by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and ors, as reported in 2008(3) J.L.J.R. 513 that before exercising powers under Sub -section (7) of Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat is required to give the terms of settlement to the parties. Thus, it appears that the impugned order has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in clear breach to the aforesaid provision of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the aforesaid decision. (iv) It has also been held by this Court in the case of State Bank of India Vrs. State of Jharkhand and ors., as reported in 2009(2) J.L.J.R. 684 that unless the parties give consent in writing that they are ready and willful for adjudication of the dispute, no dispute can be decided, on merits, by the Permanent Lok Adalat under Sub -section (8) of Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. (v) In view of the aforesaid decisions and looking to the stand taken by the present petitioner, it appears that before the Permanent Lok Adalat, no such consent was ever given by the present petitioner for adjudication of the dispute, on merits. As a cumulative effect of the foresaid facts and reasons and the judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14th March, 2008 and the consequent award/decree dated 24th March, 2008, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 260 of 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of present petition).
(3.) THIS writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and hereby4 disposed of.;