2005 LAB. I. C. 3499 ::2006 (1) AIR Jhar R 32 ::2005 (35) All Ind Cas 188 ::2005 (3) JCR 366 ::2005 (3) BLJR 2017 ::(2005) 35 All Ind Cas 188 (Jha) ::(2005) 3 East Cri C 556 ::(2005) 3 JCR 366 (Jha) ::(2005) 3 JLJR 703 ::(2005) 4 ACC 356 ::2005 BLJR 2017 ::(2006) 109 Fac LR 184 ::(2006) 1 GCD 32 (Guj) ::(2006) 2 Cur LR 167

Jharkhand High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. Y. Eqbal , J

Legal Services Authorities Act (39 of 1987) , S.22C— Claim petitioner - Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat - Matter relates to an offence of burglary and house break ing under S. 379 IPC - It is not compound able offence under any law - Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain claim application under S. 22-C of Act - Further order of permanent Lok Adalat that finding of criminal Court in non compoundable offence is not binding on it - Erroneous. No doubt. Chap. VI(A) has been inserted in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 by Amendment Act of 2002 for constitution of permanent Lok Adalat for the purpose of prelitigation conciliation and settlement, but the whole object of the Act is to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker section of the Society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disability. The amended provision of the Act does not confer power to the Permanent Lok Adalat even to entertain the disputes which is related to a criminal offence not compoundable in law. In present case the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed great error of law in holding that it has jurisdiction inspite of the fact that the matter relates to an offence not compound-able under any law. The Permanent Lok Adalat has further committed serious error of law in holding that th....