AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 193 wordsK. Kannan, J.—The petition stands on a short point of what obtains primacy to a decision rendered by Permanent Lok Adalat comprising three members viz.: the decision of the minority view of one member being the Chairman was to take effect against the decision of the majority of two members. The award gave effect to the minority view. This is patently illegal in the light of Section 22-E(3) of the Legal Services Authority Act which reads as under:
"The award made by permanent Lok Adalat under this act shall be a majority of the person constituting the permanent Lok Adalat".
The order which was put to effect being the view of the Chairman who was in a minority shall be subordinated to the view of the majority. This is patently wrong and set aside. This would mean reversal of the decision of what was given effect and the petitioner will have a right of consideration of the majority view, namely, the petitioner is entitled to allotment as stated in the order of the view of majority.
The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed on the above terms.