1 2025:CGHC:565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5 of 2025 1 Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Gupta Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Bhatko, Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Presently Resided At- Bauripara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislature, New Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, New Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Collector District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 4 The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Sub Division- Sitapur, Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 5 The Tahsildar Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 6 Ishwar Chand Yadav The Then Tahsildar, Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Presently Posted As Tahsildar, Tahsil Darima, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 7 Rajeshwar Working As Naib Nazir, Office Of Tahsildar, Tahsil Batauli, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri A.N. Bhakta & Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/01/2025 Heard. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for following reliefs:- “10.1.That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2. That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) vide permanent Lok Adalat Case No.40/2023, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Permanent Lok Adalat and Respondent No.03 to restore the adjusted amount of Rs.1,94,966/- with interest, in the Fixed Deposit account of Petitioner within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10.4. That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to impose suitable cost on the Respondent No.03. 10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.7.2022 petitioner deposited sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of State Bank of India, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). The date of maturity of said Fixed Deposit (FD) is 15.01.2025. Petitioner’s son i.e. deceased husband of respondent No.4, who was employed in Police Department, 3 had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent-Bank on 12.7.2021. He died in harness on 26.12.2021 and after his death, compassionate appointment is granted to respondent No.4. On 28.2.2023 petitioner received message on her mobile phone regarding withdrawal of amount deposited by her in bank as ‘Fixed Deposit’. Upon inquiry, petitioner came to know that the said fixed deposit amount has been adjusted by bank towards loan granted to her son i.e. deceased husband of respondent No.4. Petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.3 praying that as respondent No.4 has been granted compassionate appointment in Police Department on the death of her husband i.e. son of petitioner, therefore, loan amount advanced to her son be recovered from respondent No.4. However, when nothing favourable was heard by petitioner from the side of respondent bank authorities, petitioner submitted an application under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1987’) before the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute i.e. for re-depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in her fixed deposit account and for grant of compensation towards financial, physical and mental agony caused to her. By the award impugned, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ambikapur rejected application of petitioner holding that the adjustment made by the bank authorities is lawful and it has not been proved that there was any deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is illegal and without jurisdiction. The dispute raised by petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat is considered and adjudicated by two members only i.e. Chairman and one Member, and not by duly constituted Permanent Lok Adalat 4 consisting of three members and therefore, the impugned award is void ab initio. To substantiate his submission reference has been made to the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Arshad Ahmad vs. State of CG & ors, reported in 2024 (1) CGLJ 223 (DB). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that fixed deposit in the respondent bank is the self-acquired money of petitioner, therefore, respondent bank should not have adjusted the same against loan amount of her deceased son without informing the petitioner and getting her consent. Since the bank had not done so, the service rendered by the bank to the petitioner was deficient. He further contended that respondent No.4 has got the government job only because of the fact that her husband died in harness and therefore, being beneficiary of compassionate appointment, she is liable to repay the loan amount obtained by her deceased husband. 5. Learned State Counsel has supported the impugned award. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Bank submits that present award is a majority award having been given by two members out of three. He submits that the Act of 1987 nowhere envisages a provision which prohibits the Permanent Lok Adalats to have a sitting without all three members present, for deciding the matter. However, he does not dispute submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on decision of the Division Bench in case of Arshad Ahmad (supra) wherein it was held that award passed in absence of one member, out of three, to be void, inoperative and invalid. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the documents annexed along with writ petition. 8. To deal with first limb of argument of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned award is not passed by full quorum of three members, it would be necessary to go through the relevant provisions of the Act of 1987, which provide for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats. 9. Section 22 of the Act of 1987 deals with the power of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22 (3) says that all the proceedings before a Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal code and every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 of Chapter XXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 10. Chapter VI-A of the Act of 1987 deals with the Permanent Lok Adalat, which is defined under Section 22A (a) of the Act of 1987. The Permanent Lok Adalat has been given jurisdiction to deal with public utility, which is also defined in Section 22A (b) of the Act of 1987. The constitution of ‘Permanent Lok Adalat’ is provided under Section 22-B of the Act of 1987, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. 6 (2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of— (a) a person who is, or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and (b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 11. A careful reading of above quoted provisions of the Act of 1987 would demonstrate that the Central Authority and every State Authority, as the case may be, have been mandated to establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be notified. The composition of Permanent Lok Adalat is provided in sub- section (2) of Section 22B, according to which, every Permanent Lok Adalat shall consists of a person who has been a judicial officer either in the rank of District Judge or Additional District Judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a District Judge, who shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and clause (b) provides qualification for appointment of two other persons as Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Thus, the Permanent Lok Adalat means a body comprising of three members which include one judicial member being Chairman and two non-judicial members being Members, constituted for hearing and taking decision on a dispute brought before it. As such, 7 the meeting or sitting of Permanent Lok Adalat will be complete only when all the members including Chairman are assembled on the date fixed. 12. Section 22C of the Act of 1987 provides the mechanism for the Permanent Lok Adalat to take cognizance of cases. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat has been provided under Section 22D. Section 22E provides that every award of Permanent Lok Adalat made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement, shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them and the award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat, which means, the Chairman and two Members. 13. The question whether the Permanent Lok Adalat consisting of two members i.e. Chairman and one non-judicial member, can adjudicate the dispute brought before it and pass a valid award under Section 22E (3) of the Act of 1987, has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Arshad Ahmad (supra) and it was observed as under:- “16. In the matter of Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti (Smt) (Dead) and another, (1995) 5 SCC 159, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering a matter rendered by a Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, ‘the Act of 1922’), while examining the Act of 1922 found that under Section 2(5), the Tribunal constituted under Section 60(1) shall consist of a President and two assessors. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, their Lordships held as under: - “6.A conspectus of the above provisions would given us unerring indication of the legislative animation that the Tribunal shall consist of three members, namely, the President and two assessors and each is co-existent with the others. The Tribunal is a civil court and the President is the Presiding Judge of the Court. Being a judicial member, 8 undoubtedly, he has been conferred with power to preside over the Tribunal, summon the witnesses secure the evidence and decide on questions of law and title and procedure…… Their Lordships further held in paragraphs 7 & 12 as under:- 7. The award of the Tribunal has been designated to be the award of the Court and the Tribunal is the Court and each member is entitled to his own opinion in determination of the compensation or measurements of the land. The Chairperson as a Civil Judge is empowered to sign the award on behalf of the Tribunal. In case of difference of opinion, the majority opinion of the members shall be the decree of the Tribunal. The mandatory quorum, therefore, is three members and the award of the Tribunal is a decree of a civil court……. When the Tribunal consists of three members, the opinion has to be of the composite body, and not of the sole President…...In case of difference of opinion, the majority view would be the executable decree. In other words, it indicates that it is a three-member statutory body and does not consist of the presiding Judge only. He is left with no option but has to associate the other member in determining the compensation of the acquired land for the trust or its nature or extent. Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with and derogatory to the scheme, purpose and intendment of the Act. The presence and participation of each member in the adjudication of the compensation or measurement or quality of land, is of necessity mandatory…...It would, therefore, be clear that all the three members should be present and should participate at the time of enquiry unless unavoidable, hear the matter on merits and the decision of the Tribunal, if not unanimous and if there be difference of opinion, be as per the majority. 12.The question thus arises whether the function by the Tribunal as a body is mandatory or directory? The discharge of the duties under the Act are quasi-judicial. The power to determine compensation and other questions involves adjudication. The discharge of the functions by the Tribunal being quasi-judicial cannot be regarded as ministerial. When the statute directs the Tribunal consisting of three members to determine compensation etc., and' designates the award as judgment and decree of the civil court, it cannot be held that the quasi-judicial functions of the Tribunal would be considered as directory, defeating the very purpose of the Act. Though inconvenience and delay may occasion in some cases by holding the provisions to be mandatory, but that is an inescapable consequence. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the adjudication by the three- member Tribunal is imperative and mandatory. Determination of the compensation in disregard thereof renders the adjudication void, invalid and in operative.” 14. 17. The principle of law laid down in Karnal Improvement Trust (supra) applies with full vigour to the facts 9 of the present case, as in the instant case also by virtue of Section 22(3) of the Act of 1987, all proceedings before a Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and every Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The function of Permanent Lok Adalat is not ministerial and therefore the composition of the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be strictly in accordance with Section 22B(2) of the Act of 1987 (one judicial member as Chairman and other two members being non-judicial members), and decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be unanimous and as per the scheme of the Act of 1987 and in case of difference of opinion, it should be as per majority. Quorum of the Permanent Lok Adalat i.e. one judicial member being Chairman and two non- judicial members being Members, is mandatory quorum which is necessary for constituting competent Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the dispute by way of conciliation or on merits. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karnal Improvement Trust (supra) further repelled the argument that the parties to the dispute have participated in the proceedings of the Tribunal without any demur or protest and therefore setting aside of the award would put them at great hardship. Their Lordships repelling the argument held that acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction and erroneous interpretation equally should not be permitted to perpetuate defeating legislative animation. It has been observed as under: - 15. 22. It is next contended that since the matter is long pending and the appellant has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the single member award, it is not a fit case warranting interference under Article 136. Acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction and erroneous interpretation equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate defeating of legislative animation. …” 16. 18. As such, in absence of mandatory quorum of one judicial member being Chairman and two non-judicial members being Members in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Karnal Improvement Trust (supra), the impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat would be void, invalid and inoperative. 17. 23. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion and legal analysis, we are of the considered opinion that adjudication of dispute by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) consisting of one judicial member being Chairman and two non-judicial members being Members, total three members, is mandatory and imperative and determination of dispute on merits by two members (one judicial member and one non- judicial member), the impugned award passed is void, inoperative and invalid and consequently, liable to be set aside. As such, the award dated 10-11-2021 passed by the 10 Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur in Case No.12/2019 (Arshad Ahmad v. Executive Engineer, uxj laHkkx&2] if’pe CSPDCL and another) as well as the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law by duly constituted Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22B(2) of the Act of 1987.” 18. In view of above statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1987 and in the light of the above quoted decision, there remains no doubt that for passing a valid award under the Act of 1987, it is necessary that the composition of Permanent Lok Adalat must be in accordance with Section 22B (2) of the Act of 1987 i.e. Chairman and two members. In the absence of one of them, the quorum would not be complete and the Forum would have thereby no jurisdiction and competence to decide the matters. 19. Now coming back to the facts of case at hand. Perusal of the impugned award would show that dispute raised by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Utility Services) is adjudicated by two members only i.e. Chairman and one technical Member. Whereas, under Section 22B (2) the Permanent Lok Adalat has been termed as a body comprising of three members, which include Chairman and two members. Though there is provision of passing the award by a majority of the persons, as contained in Section 22 B (3) of the Act of 1987, but it relates to majority award having been given by two members out of three of a duly constituted Permanent Lok Adalat. This cannot be construed to mean that two members only are competent to convene the meeting of Permanent Lok Adalat and make the award. It is well settled principle of law that when an authority or body is constituted under the statute, its constitution provided in the statute has to be 11 strictly adhered to. In the case at hand, since the composition of Permanent Lok Adalat was not in accordance with the mandate of the Act of 1987, which mandatorily requires all the three Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat to remain present for having a sitting for adjudication of the dispute brought before it or passing of a valid award under the Act of 1987, the impugned award cannot be said to be an award passed by the duly constituted Permanent Lok Adalat and as such, it is liable to set aside. 20. In the above circumstance, I am of the considered opinion that there is no need to advert to all other grounds, which had been argued by learned counsel for the respective parties, touching the merits and demerits of the matter. 21. For the foregoing discussions, the award dated 20.2.2024 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of the claim of petitioner on merits by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utilities) Ambikapur, District Surguja constituted in accordance with provisions of Section 22B (2) of the Act of 1987. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti