Aravindakshan V.V. v. Ambalappuzha Taluk Legal Services Committee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/8TH CHAITHRA 1934 WP(C).No. 1348 of 2009 (I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------ARAVINDAKSHAN.V.V., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKEVELIYIL HOUSE, THUMBOLI PO. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: -----------1. AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMIITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. S.N.G.S.S. TRUST, THUMBOLI, KOMMADY, ALAPPUZHA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. A.R.GOPINATH ANCHUTHAYYIL HOUSE KOMMADY PO., ALAPPUZHA, SECRETARY SNGSS TRUST, THUMBOLI. 5. VIJAYAN, ARAYASSERIL HOUSE THUMBOLI PO., ALAPPUZHA, PRESIDENT S.N.G.S.S. TRUST, THUMBOLI. 6. AMRUTHA MAHITHAN, W/O.M.D.MAHITHAN, MANGALATHU VEEDU, ARATTUVAZHI PO. ARYAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A BY ADV. SMT.M.A.SULFIA BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.ABDUL SALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2803-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX TO WPC NO.1348 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 14/12/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** EXT.R6(1): TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO.54/09 DATED 23/7/2009 BEFORE THE LEARNED SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. // True Copy// PA to Judge ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.1348 of 2009 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 award passed by the District Legal Services Authority. The award was passed based on a complaint preferred by the 6[th] respondent herein as Ext.P1 wherein it is alleged that the gold ornaments pledged by the 6[th] respondent before the 3[rd] respondent was not returned despite the fact that the amount required for redeeming the gold ornaments was also paid. It seems that initially the Secretary and President of the 3[rd] respondent were impleaded as parties and later, on the basis of an application filed by the 6[th] respondent herein, the petitioner herein was impleaded on 14/11/2008. It is stated in Ext.P2 order that at the time of hearing, the petitioner agreed to return the gold ornaments (13 sovereigns) before 11/1/2009 failing which he will pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed under force and coercion in so far as there was W.P.C.No.1348/09 2 threat from the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police to agree on such a settlement. Therefore according to the petitioner Ext.P2, being under threat and compulsion, is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent contends that the petitioner had voluntarily signed the settlement before the Lok Adalath and the contrary allegation is absolutely wrong. The counsel also referred to Ext.R6(1), counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein before the Sub Court, Aleppey in the execution proceedings stating that the settlement was signed by him under the compulsion of the office bearers of the Trust. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the stand taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition is contrary to what is stated earlier and his version cannot be believed. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 also supports the order passed by the Lok Adalath. According to the counsel, the amount was received by the petitioner herein from the 6[th] respondent and hence he has agreed to refund the amount involved in the matter. 3 W.P.C.No.1348/09 5. This Court had called for the records relating to the case which had been received under cover of letter dated 21/1/2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in **Krishnakumari v. Venugopal [2005(2) KLT 185], Siji Antony v. Saji John [2010 (1) KLT 387]** and **Ambika Kumary v. State of Kerala [2011(2) KLT 673]** to contend for the proposition that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the award passed by the Lok Adalath. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Prima facie, it is seen that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings. Before the Lok Adalath, there was no allegation against him. Even after the petitioner was impleaded, there is no allegation that he was personally responsible for receiving the amount and not redeeming the gold ornaments or returning the same. In the absence of such allegation, it is not known how a third person can be impleaded and order passed against him. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Lok Adalath to verify, before arriving at a settlement as to whether the complaint discloses any liability on any person and in what form. This is a case where the 6[th] respondent had filed a complaint stating that her W.P.C.No.1348/09 4 pledged gold ornaments were not given back despite the amount being remitted. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner herein to indicate that he was in any way personally responsible for returning the gold ornaments. It is stated in the impleading petition that the 3[rd] respondent had collected the amount and given a receipt towards the same but the gold ornaments were not returned. Apparently, the transaction is between the complainant (6[th] respondent) and the 3[rd] respondent Trust or the Society as the case may be. Primarily it is the obligation of the Society or Trust to settle the liability and if any orders are to be passed against the office bearers necessarily two things should arise. i) There has to be some allegation against the office bearers to have misappropriated and taken the gold ornaments or money as the case may be (or) ii) They should voluntarily agree to settle the liability. 7. In so far as first part is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner. In regard to the second part even if the allegation of threat or compulsion is not established it is necessary in the interests of justice that an opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to ventilate their W.P.C.No.1348/09 5 grievance. In other words, a person who is not agreeable to a particular settlement, cannot be forced to pay any amount if he is not personally liable or does not voluntarily agree to such a proposition. 8. In that view of the matter, I feel Ext.P2 award is liable to be set aside and requires reconsideration. Hence the writ petition is allowed as follows: - i) Ext.P2 award is set aside. ii) The Lok Adalath shall reconsider Ext.P1 complaint after giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file his objections. iii) It is open for the complainant (6[th] respondent) to make necessary amendments to Ext.P1 complaint. It is made clear that 6[th] respondent shall be entitled to take any other proceedings as permissible under law with reference to the subject matter of the issue either before a civil court or a criminal court. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.1348/09 6 W.P.C.No.1348/09 7 W.P.C.No.1348/09 8 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011