# National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata & Anr v. K.P.S. Educational Trust, Agra

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 295
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 33783 of 2022
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-co-ltd-kolkata-anr-v-k-p-s-educational-trust-agra-48017
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 - Sections 22 & 22-C -
Permanent Lok Adalat - Ex-parte award
was passed without providing opportunity
of hearing - Legality challenged - No
conciliation process adopted - Effect -
Held, the proposed terms of settlement
u/s
22-C(7),
and
the
conciliation
proceedings preceding it, are mandatory -
If Permanent Lok Adalats are allowed to
bypass this step just because a party is
absent,
it
would
be
tantamount
to
deciding disputes on their merit ex parte
and issuing awards which will be final,
binding and will be deemed to be decrees
of civil courts - This was simply not the
intention of the Parliament - High Court
found the award vitiated and illegal in the
eye of law. (Para 6, 8 and 10)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata & Anr. Vs. K.P.S. Educational Trust, Agra
295
undertaking any exercise for change of the
land use of Rampur Garden as it would
require a notice to be published by it in
atleast one news paper. No such notice has
been brought on record. Consequently, the
submission advanced that the application
filed by the petitioner is referable to the
resolution passed by the Board inviting
objections under Section 13 (3) and the
State Government alone could have dealt
with it, is devoid of merit.

21. The other resolution which has
some relevance is the one passed at item
No.4 with the permission of the Chairman
in the Board's 83rd meeting. It is in
relation to proposed master-plan 2031. It
mentions that a presentation of the masterplan was given and the members made
suggestions for getting a booklet of
proposed master-plan printed for sale to
general public to facilitate filing of
objections and suggestions. One of the
suggestion
also
was
that
where
constructions had been raised in violation
of the prescribed uses, wherever possible,
the same should be adjusted and the land
use be determined in the light of
objections/suggestions. The said decision
taken in the Board only indicates that
preparation of new master-plan is in
progress. The proposals made by the
members and as recorded in the minutes of
the meeting of the Board are only
recommendatory in nature. The final
master-plan 2031 has still not seen the
light of the day. At best, the petitioner can
also make/submit its objection/proposal in
accordance with law, but at present, in
absence of any provision in the masterplan, building by-law or zoning regulation,
allowing usage of a residential plot in
Rampur
Garden
as
a
nursing
home/hospital, we find no illegality or
impropriety in the impugned decision.

22. The petitioner cannot be permitted
to continue using the building as a hospital in
violation of the existing law, throwing all
principles of town planning to winds and
least concerned with the safety and security
of even those who are availing medical
services in the hospital, being illegally run
from the building in question.

23. The contention that there exist
various other hospitals and commercial
establishments in Rampur Garden Colony
and no action is being taken against them, is
of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as no
negative parity can be claimed. The petitioner
has failed to demonstrate any illegality or
arbitrariness on part of the BDA that may
entail interference by this Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

24. Under the facts and circumstance of
the present case, no interference is called for.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 295
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 33783 of 2022

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
K.P.S. Educational Trust, Agra
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Sri Kartikeya Saran
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 - Sections 22 & 22-C -
Permanent Lok Adalat - Ex-parte award
was passed without providing opportunity
of hearing - Legality challenged - No
conciliation process adopted - Effect -
Held, the proposed terms of settlement
u/s
22-C(7),
and
the
conciliation
proceedings preceding it, are mandatory -
If Permanent Lok Adalats are allowed to
bypass this step just because a party is
absent,
it
would
be
tantamount
to
deciding disputes on their merit ex parte
and issuing awards which will be final,
binding and will be deemed to be decrees
of civil courts - This was simply not the
intention of the Parliament - High Court
found the award vitiated and illegal in the
eye of law. (Para 6, 8 and 10)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Canara Bank Vs G.S. Jayarama (2022) 7 SCC
776
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Kartikeya Saran and Sri Vinay Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition with the prayer to
quash the ex-parte judgement and order
dated 29.06.2022 passed by Permanent Lok
Adalat, Agra in Complaint Case No.35 of
2020 (K.P.S Educational Trust Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and another).

3. It is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the order impugned has
been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Agra without providing any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. It is further argued
that no reasons whatsoever has been
recorded in the order impugned. Hence, on
both the grounds, the order passed by the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat,
Agra
dated
29.06.2022 is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, it is argued by
Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the
respondents that if the order impugned has
been passed in the absence of the petitioner,
the only remedy lies with the petitioner to
move a recall application before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, concerned.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties present. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties present, the present
writ petition is disposed of at the admission
stage itself.

6. From perusal of he order passed by
the Permanent Lok Adalat, Agra, it appears
that the same has been passed without
providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
After
going
through
the
aforesaid order, the Court is of the firm
opinion that no reasons whatsoever has
been given while allowing the petition filed
by the claimant-respondent. A complete
procedural has been prescribed under
Section 22(C) of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (In short "Act,
1987") to decide the dispute by the
Permanent Lok Adalat and Section 22 (C)
of the Act, 1987 provided that conciliation
proceedings are mandatory, thereafter the
the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
have
adjudicatary function under Legal Services
Act. Section 22 outlines the powers of the
Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats.
Section 22 is extracted below:

Section 22. Powers of Lok Adalats.--

(1) The Lok Adalat or Permanent
Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of
holding any determination under this Act,
have the same powers as are vested in a
12 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata & Anr. Vs. K.P.S. Educational Trust, Agra
297
civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a
suit in respect of the following matters,
namely:?

(a) the summoning and enforcing
the attendance of any witness and examining
him on oath;

(b) the discovery and production of
any document;

(c) the reception of evidence on
affidavits;

(d) the requisitioning of any public
record or document or copy of such record or
document from any court or office; and

(e) such other matters as may be
prescribed.

(2)
Without
prejudice
to
the
generality of the powers contained in subsection (1), every Lok Adalat or Permanent
Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to
specify
its
own
procedure
for
the
determination of any dispute coming before it.

(3) All proceedings before the 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 (45 of 1860) and every
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 (2 of 1974)."

7. Section 22-C of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 stipulates the instances
in which Permanent Lok Adalats can take
cognizance of cases. Section 22-C provides
as follows:

"22-C. Cognizance of cases by
Permanent Lok Adalat.--(1) Any party to a
dispute may, before the dispute is brought
before any court, make an application to the
Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of
dispute:

Provided that the Permanent Lok
Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect
of any matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law:

Provided
further
that
the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have
jurisdiction in the matter where the value of
the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh
rupees:

Provided also that the Central
Government, may, by notification, increase
the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the
second proviso in consultation with the
Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made
under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok
Adalat, no party to that application shall
invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same
dispute.

(3) Where an application is made
to a Permanent Lok Adalat under subsection (1), it?

(a) shall direct each party to the
application to file before it a written
statement, stating therein the facts and
nature of dispute under the application,
points or issues in such dispute and
grounds relied in support of, or in
opposition to, such points or issues, as the
case may be, and such party may
supplement
such
statement
with
any
document and other evidence which such
party deems appropriate in proof of such
facts and grounds and shall send a copy of
such statement together with a copy of such
document and other evidence, if any, to
each of the parties to the application;

(b) may require any party to the
application to file additional statement
before it at any stage of the conciliation
proceedings;

(c)
shall
communicate
any
document or statement received by it from
any party to the application to the other
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party, to enable such other party to present
reply thereto.

(4) When statement, additional
statement and reply, if any,have been filed
under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction
of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall
conduct conciliation proceedings between
the parties to the application in such
manner as it thinks appropriate taking
into account the circumstances of the
dispute.

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat
shall, during conduct of conciliation
proceedings under sub-section (4), assist
the parties in their attempt to reach an
amicable settlement of the dispute in an
independent and impartial manner.

(6) It shall be the duty of every
party to the application to cooperate in
good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat
in conciliation of the dispute relating to the
application and to comply with the
direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to
produce
evidence
and
other
related
documents before it.

(7) When a Permanent Lok
Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation
proceedings, is of opinion that there exist
elements of settlement in such proceedings
which may be acceptable to the parties, it
may formulate the terms of a possible
settlement of the dispute and give to the
parties concerned for their observations
and in case the parties reach at an
agreement on the settlement of the
dispute, they shall sign the settlement
agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat
shall pass an award in terms thereof and
furnish a copy of the same to each of the
parties concerned.

(8) Where the parties fail to
reach at an agreement under sub-section
(7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the
dispute does not relate to any offence,
decide the dispute."

8. Taking into consideration of the
aforesaid aspect of the matter, very recently
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Canara Bank Vs. G.S. Jayarama (2022) 7
SCC 776, it is held that Section 22-C(8) is
amply clear that it only comes into effect
once an agreement under Section 22-C(7)
has failed. The corollary of this is that the
proposed terms of settlement under Section
22-C(7), and the conciliation proceedings
preceding it, are mandatory. If Permanent
Lok Adalats are allowed to bypass this step
just because a party is absent, it would be
tantamount to deciding disputes on their
merit ex parte and issuing awards which
will be final, binding and will be deemed to
be decrees of civil courts. This was simply
not the intention of the Parliament when it
introduced the Legal Services Authorities
Amendment Act. Its main goal was still the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in
relation to public utilities, with a decision
on merits always being the last resort.
Therefore,
we
hold
that
conciliation
proceedings under Section 22-C of the
Legal Services Authorities Amendment Act
are mandatory in nature. Paragraph 37 of
the aforesaid judgement is reproduced
below:-

"37. Section 22-C(8) is amply
clear that it only comes into effect once an
agreement under Section 22-C(7) has
failed. The corollary of this is that the
proposed terms of settlement under Section
22-C(7), and the conciliation proceedings
preceding it, are mandatory. If Permanent
Lok Adalats are allowed to bypass this step
just because a party is absent, it would be
tantamount to deciding disputes on their
merit ex parte and issuing awards which
will be final, binding and will be deemed to
be decrees of civil courts. This was simply
not the intention of the Parliament when it
introduced the Legal Services Authorities
12 All. Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
299
Amendment Act. Its main goal was still the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in
relation to public utilities, with a decision
on merits always being the last resort.
Therefore,
we
hold
that
conciliation
proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA
Act are mandatory in nature."

9. From perusal of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the opinion that the law is now
well settled that in the absence of following
the prescribed procedure as specially
provided under Section 22(C)(7) of the
Legal Services Authorities Amendment Act
by
the
Permanent
Lok Adalat,
the
order/award is vitiated.

10. In the present case, Permanent
Lok Adalat Agra does not follow the
aforesaid procedure as provided under the
Legal Services Authorities Amendment
Act, therefore, the award is vitiated and
illegal in the eyes of law, the same is liable
to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

11. Since no reply has been filed by
the complainant, he is directed to file reply
in the aforesaid case within three week
from today.

12. Permanent Lok Adalat Agra is
directed to pass fresh order after following
the complete procedure under the law as
well as the laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra)
most expeditiously and preferably within a
period of three months from the date reply
filed by the claimant/respondent.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 61914 of 2017
With
Writ C No. 30548 of 2008

Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakhar Tandon, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri S.
Shekhar, Sri Nagendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 33 & 47-A - UP Stamp (Valuation
of Property) Rules, 1997 - Rules 7, 8, 9
&10 - Lease deed executed - Earlier reply
to
the
recovery
notice
was
filed,
thereafter
a
report
was
called
on
13.04.2009, in pursuance whereof the
report dated 4.4.2016 was filed after 7
years.
Relying
upon
report
dated
4.4.2016, the impugned ex-parte order
was passed - Validity challenged - Held,
when on 4.4.2016 after a lapse of seven
years, the report had been filed then the
petitioner also ought to have been given
an opportunity to object to the report -
When the Collector was aware of the fact
that the petitioner had not appeared for
the last 70 dates and when the Collector
was also aware of the fact that the report,
which was called on 13.4.2009, was
submitted on 4.4.2016, then also the
Collector ought to have issued notices to
the petitioner to appear and to file his
objection to the report. (Para 17 and 19)
B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- Writ - Alternative remedy - Remedy of
statutory appeal, when is liable to be
ignored - High Court refused to relegate
the petitioner to avail the remedy of
appeal as the order impugned dated
28.8.2017 itself was an ex-parte order and