96

CHAPTER- V

ORGANIZATION OF LOK ADALAT IN INDIA

It is true that in spite of number of legislations the fate of weaker sections has

not improved. The poor persons are the silent victims of injustice. It is no more a

secret that crimes against women are increasing. Dowry death cases are being

registered in number throughout the country. In order to protect the weaker sections it

is thought that law should be utilized as an instrument of "Socio Economic" change.

Further to protect weaker section from unnecessary litigation and to reduce the

mounting arrears of cases in Law courts, Law Commission recommended for the

establishment of Nyaya Panchayats. The basic idea behind the Scheme of Lok Adalat

is to speed up clearance of pendency of huge arrears in Law Courts, and to reduce the

Costs of litigations. One should not forget that speedy trial is fundamental right of a

litigant and the accused. Nayaya Panchayat at the grass root level will secure social

justice1 Section 19 of the legal services Authorities Act, 1987 provides.

2

(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal

Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the

case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at

such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas

as it thinks fit.

(2) Every Lok Adalat organized for an area shall consist of such number of

a) serving or retired judicial officers; and

b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority

or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services

Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the

case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organizing such

Lok Adalat.

1Manohar Raj Sexena, Member, Metropolitan Legal and Advice Committee, Hyderabad, AIR 1986

Journal Section, p. 703 also sec. S.K. Sarkar, Law Relating to Lok Adalats and Legal Aid, 2010, pp.

95-94. 2See. Chapter VI, Lok Adalats.

97

(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b)

of sub section (2) for Lok Adalats organized by the Supreme Court Legal

Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central

Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

(4) The experience and qualification of other persons referred to in clause (b)

of sub section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub section (3) shall

be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the

Chief Justice of the High Court.

(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a

compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-

(i) any case pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not

brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized:

Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or

matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any Law.3

5.1 Consent of parties

The jurisdiction that the Lok Adalat derives under sub- clause (5) of Section 19

is hedged by the expression "to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement".

In legal terminology it connotes the jurisdiction that could be exercised by the Lok

Adalat cannot extend to deciding a dispute where one of the parties is not amenable or

agreeable to a compromise or settlement. The moment one of the parties to the dispute

expresses unwillingness to arrive at a compromise or settlement, the Lok Adalat

would stand stripped of its jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in any manner as held

in Commissioner of Karnataka State Public Instruction (Education), Banglore v.

Nirupadi Virbhadrappa Shiva Simpi4

5.2 Court can even suo motu refer the case to Lok Adalats

A Court can suo motu or at the request of even one of the parties refer the case

to the Lok Adalat provided that it is done after giving a hearing to all parties and it is

satisfied that there are chances of settlement or that the case is a fit one to be taken

3Section 19, The Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 Inserted by Act 59 of 1994 Sec. 14

4AIR 2001 Kant 504

98

cognizance by the Lok Adalat and records such satisfaction. In fact Courts owe a duty

to examine all cases to find out whether they are fit for reference to Lok Adalats.5

5.3 Effect of Lok Adalat

Lok Adalat System is not visualized as a supplement to Court system by

supplementary machinery to get resolved pending cases in the Court of law.

Resolution of cases through Lok Adalats is a composite endeavor. It implies

resolution of peoples disputes by discussion, counseling, persuasion and conciliation

so that it gives speedy and cheap justice with the mutual and free consent of the

parties. In short, the concept of Lok Adalat implies speedy and cheap justice to

common man at his doorstep. It is participatory justice in which people and Judges

participate and resolve their disputes by discussion and mutual consent. The Lok

Adalat system is basically meant for the resolution of people's disputes by conciliatory

technique and voluntary actions. It also helps in creating awareness among the people

of their rights and obligations, by providing legal literacy in the basic laws with which

people come in close contact in day-to-day life, in involving them in judicial processes

at the grass-root level and by educating social workers to function as paralegal -to-

enable -them- te give first-aid in law to the people on the spot.6

5.4 Experience and Qualification of members

The negative qualification has been prescribed for a person to be a member of

Lok Adalat by rule 13 of the National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995,

According to this rule a person shall not be qualified to be included in the Lok Adalat

unless he meets any of the following conditions:

(a) a member of the legal profession; or

(b) a person of repute who is specially interested in the implementation of

Legal Services Schemes and Progammes; or

(c) an eminent Social Worker who is engaged in the upliftment of the weaker

sections of the people, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women,

children, rural and urban labour.

5H.V. Venkatesh v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 111(2002) ACC

6Justice N.C. Jam, Punjab and Haryana Court, AIR 1996(Journal Section) p 184

99

The experience and qualification of the members of the Lok Adalat has to be

prescribed in consultation with the Chief Justice. The expression "consultation" has

been interpreted by the Supreme- Court as concurrence for the purpose of appointment

of the Judges of High Court and with due respect the same analogy may be applied

here. In this regard the following observations of the Supreme Court are worth

considering:-

The judicial institutions, by tradition, have an avowed political commitment

and the assurance of a non-political complexion of the judiciary cannot be divorced

from the process of appointments. Constitutional phraseology of consultation has to

be understood and expounded consistent with and to promote this constitutional spirit.

These implications are, indeed, vital. The constitutional values cannot be whittled

down by calling the appointments of Judges as an executive act. The appointment is

rather the result of collective, constitutional process. It is participatory constitutional

function. It is, perhaps, inappropriate to refer to any 'power' or 'right' to appoint

Judges. It is essentially discharge of a constitutional trust of which certain

constitutional functionaries are collectively repositories. The executive, on whose

advice the President acts, as a participant in the process has its own important and

effective role. To say that the power to appoint solely vests with the executive and that

the executive, after bestowing such consideration on the result of consultation with the

judicial organ of the State, would be at liberty to take such decision as it may think fit

in the matter of appointments, is an oversimplification of a sensitive and subtle

constitutional sentence and, if allowed, foul play, would be subversive of the doctrine

of judicial independence. Judicial Review is a part of the basic constitutional

structure and one of the basic features of the essential Indian constitutional policy.

The essential constitutional doctrine does not by itself justify or necessitates any

primacy to the executive wing on the ground of its political accountability to the

electorate. On the contrary what is necessary is an interpretation sustaining the

strength and vitality of Judicial Review. It might under certain circumstance be said

that Government is not bound to appoint a Judge so recommended by the Judicial

Wing. But to contemplate a power for the executive to appoint a person despite his

being disapproved or not would be wholly inappropriate and would constitute an

100

arbitrary exercise of power. The opinion of the Chief Justice of India should have the

preponderant role. The purpose of the 'consultation' is to safeguard the independence

of the judiciary and to ensure selection of proper persons. The matter is, therefore, not

to be considered that the final say is the exclusive prerogative of executive

Government.7

In the case of alapati vivekanand, parties had appeared before Lok Adalat.

Petitioners had taken loan and agreed to pay and sign agreement as required under

law. Order was passed by Lok Adalat recording it. It did not suffer from any

procedural irregularity. No further defense evidence was to be taken. Lok Adalat

could arrive at a compromise/settlement between parties.8

5.5 Functioning of Lok Adalat system and regular judicial system compared

It is true that a litigant will be getting speedy disposal in the process of "Lok

Adalat" but what can be its implication? The Lok Adalat system and regular judicial

court system are undoubtedly for public in general and for litigants in particular. The

justice being administered by regular judicial Courts is often bad in taste. People may

start losing confidence in the working of such Courts and ultimately in the working of

the judiciary as a whole and collapse of the democracy may be a necessary

consequence.9

A litigant can well-appreciate that a presiding officer before whom his case was

pending for years could not decide it while holding "Lok Adalat" he could decide the

same in no time, suggesting him (litigant) to say goodbye to the working and

functioning of regular Judicial Courts. This becomes a big pointer to see, these two

systems should work at the same time without harming the judicial institutions and

finally the democracy. Whether these two systems should be carried out

simultaneously or there should be total substitution of one for the other, at least for

specific nature of cases lest the people may lose confidence and faith in the judiciary?

Or can't the style of functioning of Lok Adalat be adopted by regular Courts at

different stages of trial of such cases? And can't for that purpose, any such procedural 7Subhash Sharma v. Union of India and Supreme Court Advocate-on-record Association v. Union of

India, AIR 1991 SC 631. 8AIapati Vivekananda v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., 2006 (47) AIR 144(AP).

9Lok Nath Sangra, Concept v. Lok Adalat vis-a-vis Regular Legal System, AIR 1997 (Journal Section)

pp. 106-107

101

amendment with constitutional recognition be made in the functioning of regular

judicial Courts in that manner.10

The law cannot be equated with Mathematics. It is not mathematics. But it is a

science or it may be said that' it is nearer to science or it can be said that Law is

engineering. It requires systematic, well planned, study. It requires reasons based on

solid principles. It further requires formulation, articulation, specification, and the

express, unambiguous, clear and sound purpose to be achieved. It must withstand and

test of the principles of natural justice, fairness, reasonableness and justness. In spite

of all this our laws and enactments are not perfect, are not always correct and defect-

less. They are in many respects defective, redundant, superfluous and meaningless. In

law-making process our law makers are not applying their utmost care and attention.

Neither they are vigilant, nor diligent.11

No concept of law is ever intelligible, save in the context in which it is used in

a given society and at a particular point in time. In the realm of jurisprudence

beginning with the philosophers' conceptions of law, there have been many theories

on the meaning of law. The concept of law in any given society, therefore, lacks

specific definition that can make it understandable. The difficulty of a definition

should, however, not be confused with the absence of a proper description. This is not

to say that there has been no concerted attempt by jurists and academic writers to

provide a universally acceptable definition.

One of such writers Hacker'12

looking at importance in the society said: The

concept of law fulfills a central role in jurisprudence, as Kant claimed, for the moral

obligation in ethics. No simple definition will satisfy us in -the absence of a clear

grasp of the ramifications of the concept through its domain and an acceptable

criterion of adequacy it should be noted that many jurists and academicians have

adopted different approaches in discussing the general nature, scope and process of

definition. Yet some others have opted for a consensus on the various arguments ... it

was always a "res" of thing that required definition, not 'nominal' or words or concept.

This notion is not without its shortcoming, for it is to define law by the process of

10

Ibid. 11

D.B. Chaugala, AIR 1988(Journal Section) p.18 12

R.M.S. Hacker, Law Morality and Society, 1977.p.5

102

'real' definition, it leads easily into difficulties. As Hart13

recognizes there is no

familiar well understood general category of which law is a member.14

Attempts to find some common characteristics or an essence, enjoyed by all the

instances of what ordinary usages of the world are accepted as laws have all broken

down at one point or another. Austin examined the word "law" and distinguished it, as

applies to rules in system which he - recognized as legal, from its usage in other

contexts, such as e.g., in Divine laws or laws of Physics or Chemistry. The combined

effects of Austin's analysis is the problem of defining the term "law" from the view

point of the theologian, the historian, the sociologist, the philosopher, the political

scientist or the lawyer. Most lawyers will approach the problem from inside a

particular legal system. It is not surprising, therefore, that for the lawyer's purpose; the

investigation may stop at the point where the legal system provides authoritative tests

for recognizing law from what is not legal tender. Much may be learnt about law by

describing it in terms of its basis in nature, reason, religion or ethics; by reference to

its source in custom, precedent, legislation; by its effect on the life of society; by the

method of its formal expression of authoritative application; or by the ends that it

seeks to achieve.15

The definition of law should establish clear distinctions between rules of law

and rules of ethics, and between rules of law and such rules as those of positive

morality and of etiquette, Ethics in this context can be seen as a study of the supreme

good, an attempt to discover those rules which should be followed, because they are

basically good in themselves. Law on the other hand, tends to prescribe what is

considered necessary for the time and place. Ethics concentrates on the individual

rather than the society, while law is concerned with the social relationships of men

and their environment. Furthermore, ethics considers the move for any action while

requiring conduct to comply with certain standards. Man is free to accept or

heterogeneous law is imposed on the individual without his consent. For if a rule of

ethics, which is in accordance with positive morality is broken, there may be the

13

H.L.A. Hart, Concept of Law, p.13 14

Dr.H.H. Menash, Is Law necessary, AIR 1995(Journal Section),p.102 15

Ibid.

103

effective sanction of the pressure of public opinion. But ethical rules, which are in

advance of the view of a particular community, are imposed by no earthly force.16

Basically law is characterized by force and normativity. Of these two factors,

the first will diminish in scientific society while the latter will grow. This is because

the law till now has been centered on property, and its aim has been basically to

preserve existing property relations. Force is applied to maintain these relations. But

the law of the scientific society will not be centered on property, and will instead be

centered on science. In view of the high level of technology there will be abundance

of property in the scientific era. And when a thing is in abundance there is no struggle

for its ownership or possession, and consequently no laws for resolving disputes

relating to it. Moreover, in scientific society social relations will be harmonious, since

social discord can only obstruct the smooth, planned functioning of such a society.

The aim of law in the scientific era will, therefore, not be to maintain existing property

relations but to regulate society on scientific lines and promote scientific

development.17

5.6 Lok Adalat Jurisdiction: Relating to offences

Proviso to Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 specifically

lays down that Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction in respect of cases or matters

relating to offences which are not compoundable under any law. Since the offence

under Section 498-A IPC is not a compoundable offence; the case ought not to have

been referred to Lok Adalat by the Sessions Judge. Sessions Court should not refer

bail or anticipatory bail petitions to Lok Adalat because as per Section 438, Cr.P.C.

anticipatory bail can be granted only by the sessions Court or High Court. Therefore,

question of Lok Adalat granting anticipatory bail does not arise. The practice of

referring bail and anticipatory bail petitions to Lok Adalat is very strange and ought

not to have been resorted to by the. Sessions Judge without keeping in view that Lok

Adalat does not have jurisdiction to entertain cases relating to non-compoundable

offences.18

16

Ibid. 17

M Katju, The Nature of Law, AIR 1986(Journal Section) p.18. 18

Tirumalasetti Tulasi Bai v State, 1 (2003) DMC, pp 740-741(AP)

104

5.7 Lok Adalats supplement the existing judicial system

However, a Lok Adalat is not a court in its accepted connotation. It is a forum

where voluntary efforts intended to bring about settlement of disputes between the

parties are made through conciliatory and persuasive efforts. In other words, Lok

Adalat is a forum for alternative dispute resolution. In fact, Lok Adalat supplemented

the existing justice delivery system. The CILAS, in principle, has issued directives for

holding of Lok Adalats under the supervision of State Legal Aid and Advice Boards.

Therefore, these Boards have been organizing Lok.Adalats in different parts of the

country.

Generally, the date and place of holding Lok Adalats are fixed about a month

in advance. Information about the holding of Lok Adalat is given wide publicity

through press, poster and through Radio, T.V. and cinema slides. Before a Lok Adalat

is held, its organizers request the Presiding Officers of various Courts to look into the

cases pending in their respective Courts and see if conciliation is possible in these

cases. Once the cases are identified and possibilities of reconciliation seen, parties to

the disputes are motivated by law students and other social workers to settle their

cases through Lok Adalats. By way of incentive, the motivators are given

transportation charges and food packets on the date of Lok Adalats.19

5.8 Members of Lok Adalat

Since the state and its instrumentalities have the large number of cases

instituted by and against them in various level courts, permanent Lok Adalats ought to

be established in each of the departments or group of departments of the state and its

instrumentalities where serving or retired judicial officers could man the Lok Adalats

for quick disposal of matters by reconciliation. Since a Lok Adalat is presided over by

a sitting or a retired judge or judicial officer it evokes instant acceptability and

credibality. Experience shows that matters can be disposed of by Lok Adalats

expeditiously by reconciliation.20

19

Dr. B.R. Sharma, Lok Adalats in India- Some Reflections, AIR 1994 (Journal Section) pp.167-168. 20

Abul Hussan v. Delhi Vidynt Board, AIR 1999 Del 88

105

Necessity of independence of members - For Rule of Law to prevail, judicial

independence is of prime necessity. Dr. Robert MacGregor draws on, specking about

individual independence of judges once said:

The Judge must be made independent of most of the restraints, checks and

punishments which are usually called into play against other public officers. He is

thus protected against the most potent weapons which a democracy has at its

command: he receives almost complete protection against criticisms; he is given civil

and criminal immunity for acts committed in the discharge of his duties: he cannot be

removed from office for any ordinary offence, but only of misbehavior of a flagrant

kind, and he can never be removed simply because his decisions happened to be

disliked by the cabinet, the parliament, or the people: Such independence is

unquestionably dangerous, and if this freedom and power were indiscriminately

granted the results would certainly prove to be disastrous. The desired protection is

found by picking with special care the men who are to be entrusted with these

responsibilities, and then paradoxically heaping more privileges upon them to

stimulate their sense of moral responsibility, which is called in as a substitute for the

political responsibility which has been removed. The judge is placed in a position

where he has nothing to lose by doing what is right and little to gain by doing what is

wrong; and there is therefore every reason to hope that his best efforts will be devoted

to the conscientious performance of his duties.21

In Bradley v. Fisher22

it was pointed out that our judicial system is guided by

the principle that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him must be

free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences

to himself' Referring to above authorities the Supreme Court has also observed that for

the availability of an appropriate atmosphere where a judge would be free to act

according to his conscience it is necessary, therefore, that he should not be

overburdened with pressure of work which he finds it physically impossible to

undertake. This necessarily suggests that the judge's strength should be adequate to the

21

Quoted in S.K. Sarkar, op.cit., pp.108-109 22

(1871) 80 US 335

106

current requirement and must remain under constant review in order that

commensurate judge strength may be provided.23

5.9 Non-compoundable offence

Through Lok Adalat it has no jurisdiction in respect of non-compoundable

mater but the criminal proceedings arising out of allegations of theft of electricity

under Subhesh Sharma v Union of India and Supreme Courts Advocate on Record

Association v Union Of India. Section 379, Penal Code 1860 have been quashed by

High Court on the basis of settlement before the Lok Adalat.24

5.10 Permanent Lok Adalats

The staggering pendency is disturbing. It must be noted that in this country

there are only 10.5 judges per million populations. The situation is compounded by

lack of adequate number of supporting staff and equipment. In the present scenario

there is not only an imminent requirement of increasing the numbers of courts

commensurate with the growing population and ever increasing litigation, there is also

a paramount need to appoint permanent Lok Adalats where the expertise of the retired

judges and judicial officers and other suitable persons could be utilized in resolution

of matters by reconciliation.25

The need to establish permanent and continuous Lok Adalat(s) and to resort to

alternative dispute resolution mechanism cannot be overlooked. The Lok Adalat and

alternative dispute resolution experiment must succeed otherwise the consequence for

an overburdened court system would be disastrous. The system needs to inhale the life

giving oxygen of justice through the Lok Adalats. Already a lot of precious time has

been lost in the implementation of the Act. It was in October, 1987 that the Act was

enacted by the Parliament with a view to creating legal authorities and establishing

Lok Adalats and ensuring that the people of India receive expeditious justice on the

basis of equality. Despite the urgent need to take steps to remove clogging of cases in

courts, the Act was not enforced for almost eight years after its enactment. It was only

on November 9, 1995 that the provisions of the Act except Chapter III relating to

23

Subhesh Sharma v Union of India and Supreme Courts Advocate on Record Association v Union of

India 24

P. N. Kohli v. State, 2000 (88) DLI 852 25

Abdul Hassan V. Delhi Vidyut Board, AIR 1999 Del 88. 124 1998(6) JT 645

107

setting up of Legal services Authorities were extended to all States and Union

Territories. Chapter III, however, was enforced in eleven States and one Union

Territory during the period between November 1995 to September 1996. Since the

remaining States and Union Territories failed to enforce and implement the provisions

of Chapter-Ill, the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of

India26

and Supreme Court.

Legal Service Committee v. Union of India27

intervened in the matter and

passed directions for enforcing and, implementing the Act. Even today despite such a

heavy backlog of cases there are certain quarters that are still not willing to make use

of the provisions of the Act. It appears that the misgivings of the D.D.A. and the

M.T.N.I. in regard to the setting up of permanent Lok Adalat must be ignored. It is in

the interest of the citizens of India that permanent Lok Adalats are established and

held continuously so that the purpose for which the Act was enacted could be

achieved. It appears to me that unless permanent and continuous Lok Adalats are set

up it may not be possible to reduce the pendency in courts.

Besides, a solitary appearance of parties before a Lok Adalat which is

organized for a day or two may not be adequate for arriving at a compromise or

settlement. The need of the hour is frantically beckoning for setting up Lok Adalat on

permanent and continuous basis. What we do today will shape over tomorrow. The

choice is between an overburdened court system being crushed under its own weight,

and alternative dispute resolution machinery including an inexpensive and quick

dispensation of justice by Lok Adalat. For facilitating expeditious disposal of all kinds

of cases permanent Lok Adalat must be set up in D.V.B.,M.C.D., N.D.M.C., D.D.A.,

M.T.N.I., G.I.C. and various departments of the Government It also seems to me that

the accumulation of cases in courts can be reduced or prevented if permanent Lok

Adalats are established for the Union Territory of Delhi. There should also be one or

more permanent Lok Adalat, depending upon the magnitude of the work, for resolving

26

1998(6)JT645 27

1998(4) JT 320

108

the disputes between (1) the citizens and the Government of India, and (2) the

government of India and its employees.28

In the circumstances, therefore, it was directed that permanent Lok Adalats

shall be set up in the Delhi Administration, Delhi Development Authority, Mahanager

Telephone Nigam Limited, Municipal Corporation of India by the Delhi State Legal

service Authority within a period of four weeks. It is further directed that these Lok

Adalats shall meet at such intervals as may be dictated by the necessity to hold the

same according to the workload. However, to start with Lok Adalats in the Delhi

Administration, D.D.A., M.T.N.L., M.C.D., N.D.M.0 and the G.I.C. can be held twice

a week. In case of D.V.B. the Lok Adalat shall be held five days a week in view of the

large number of cases which are pending in various courts. The D.V.B. shall comply

with the order, dated October 15, 1998 and subsequent orders. Each of the above said

organizations shall provide adequate and proper infrastructure for holding the Lok

Adalats. Affidavits in compliance shall be filed by the Delhi State Legal Service

Authority, Delhi Administration, D.V.B., D.D.A., M.T.N.L., M.C.D, N.D.M.C. and

the G.I.C.29

The Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat is not-based on mere ground that police invoked

a man-compoundable Section in the Charge-sheet. Merely because the police may

invoke a particular section which may appear to be non-compoundable, that ipso facto

the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat will not be barred provided the following factors are

prevalent. Firstly, if on an examination of the material i.e. the evidence and in

particular the injuries it clearly emerges that had the Court even come to the

conclusion that the accused was guilty, the conviction would only be under a lesser

offence and Court quoted an instance where the charge-sheet may invoke section 326,

IPC but the statements and the medical certificates only make out a charge under

Section 323 IPC or Section 324 IPC: the reference to the Lok Adalat would not be bad

in such a situation. This is an important clarification because High Court has come

across many instances where there is suspicion that the injury is more serious, than it

actually was, such as to where there is suspicion that fracture has occurred and section

28

S.K. Sarkar, op.cit., pp. 109-111

29Abdul Hussainv. Delhi Vidyut Board, AIR 1999 Delhi 88:1999(77) DLI 640

109

326 IPC or section 307 IPC is originally invoked, which on a subsequent examination

of the material before the Court is wholly unjustified. What their Lordships are

repeatedly emphasizing is that the Legislature has intended through this enactment to

put an end to a large number of disputes where in cases are pending before the Courts

and where, in the general and social interest a compromise is far more desirable. If the

authority is satisfied that the parties have willingly compromised the dispute, the

enactment provides for a closure of the proceedings and that laudable objective should

not be frustrated merely on technical grounds that the charge-sheet may mention a

section that is not compoundable.30

5.11 Principles of justice, equity and fair play are the guiding factors for decision

to be arrived at before Lok Adalats

The work "Lok" prefacing the word "Adalat" would, therefore, influence the

meaning of the latter by requiring it to be an institution not of formal and static

significance inspiring awe in the minds of the people, rather, to be one entirely

committed to sub serve the aspirations of speedy justice of people with a missionary

zeal. The aims, objectives and rationale of such Adalats must ultimately be judged and

evaluated at the touchstone of the lofty concept of "Lok" even as its functioning and

methodology must be inspired by, and must translate into practice, the hopes and

aspirations of "Lok". No technical person known to law can act as an impediment in

achieving the said objective.31

On the other hand, the work "Adalat" signifies a sense of thorough,

dispassionate and expert deliberating of the issues before it so that its decision inspire

an intrinsic trustworthiness. These facets of the concept of 'Adalat' cannot fail to

influence and circumscribe at least the populist content in the concept "Lok". A Lok

Adalat, therefore, is morally obliged to ensure that comprises forming basis of its

decision are grounded in the soil of justice and parties do not suffer, in the populist

wake of getting the dispute settled, on account of their innocence and ignorance in the

matter of fully appreciating the facts and sweep of their rights or the degree of damage

suffered by them. In Lok Adalat, the "Lok" content i.e. the public opinion aspect and

30

State of Karnataka v. Gurunath, 2000 Cri. U. 1194 (Kant) 31

S.K. Sarkar, op. cit., pp. 111-112.

110

the "Adalat" content i.e., the accurate and thorough deliberation aspect and the

"Adalat" content i.e., the accurate and. thorough deliberation aspect, have to be

judiciously blended and balanced, especially in view of the fact that the decisions of

Lok Adalat have been made non-appealable. It appears that these aspects have been

well-taken care of by providing under Sections 19(1) and aspects have been well-

taken care of by providing under 20(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to

the effect that Judicial Officers are integral part forming the constitution of Lok

Adalat and legal principles and principles of justice, equity and fair play are the

guiding factors for decision based on compromises to be arrived at before such

Adalats.32

Quality of service - The Free Legal Aid Movement has failed before it could

start in full swing because of the half- hearted Government patronage and no

corresponding co- operation from the members of doing service to the community, no

relationship can be established between the Court and the common man who has to

daily suffer injustice because courts are inaccessible to him. Michael Zander has

studied the legal system of Britain to suggest law reforms and records with

satisfaction in his book "A Matter of Justice" that in Britain, a large number of

competent senior banisters are busy in acting as amicus curiae in courts and in

providing legal aid to the poor for which they are paid by the State. The situation in

India is just the reverse. Less expensive, less technical, less forma, cheap and quick-

that is sort of justice a common man looks for.33

Though Article 39-A of the Constitution provides fundamental rights to equal

justice and free legal aid and through the State provides amicus curiae to defend the

indigent accused, he would be meted out with unequal defense if, as is common

knowledge the youngster from the Bar who has either a little experience or no

experience is assigned to defend him. It is high time that senior counsel practicing in

the Court concerned, volunteer to defend such indigent accused as a part of their

professional duty.34

32

D.K. Sharma, "Lok Adalat"- The Mission, the Movement and Some Thoughts for fresh impetus,

AIR 200 (Journal Section), p.97. 33

D.H. Dharmadhikari, Law and Common Man, AIR 1990 (Journal Section), p.41 34

Kishore CHand v. State of H.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140

111

5.12 Resolution of cases through Lok Adalats is a composite endeavour

It should be kept in view that Lok Adalat system is not visualized as a supplant

to Court system but supplementary machinery to get resolved pending cases in the

courts of law. Resolution of cases through Lok Adalats is a composite endeavour. It

implies resolution of people's disputes by discussion, counseling, persuasion and

conciliation so that it gives speedy and cheap justice with the mutual and free consent

of the parties. In short, the concept of Lok Adalat implies speedy and cheap justice to

common man at his doorstep. It is participatory justice in which people and Judges

participate and resolve their disputes by discussion and mutual consent.35

The Lok Adalat system is basically meant for the resolution of people's

disputes by conciliatory technique and voluntary actions, it also helps in creating

awareness among the people of their rights and obligations, by providing legal literacy

in the basic laws with which people come in close, contract in day-to-day life, in

involving them in judicial processes at grass-root level and by educating social

workers to function as para-legals to enable them to give first aid in law to the people

on the spot.36

5.13 Scheme

While sub-section (1) of Section 19 deals with organization of Lok Adalat,

subsection (2) thereof deals with the constitution of the Lok Adalats. Under sub-

section Cl) of section 19, Lok Adalats can be organized by the concerned authority or

committee for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. Thus, in a

given area different and separate Lok Adalats could be constituted for dealing with

specified types of matters. According to sub-section (2), Lok Adalat is to consist of

serving of retired judicial officer(s) and other person (s). The experience and

qualifications of u other persons" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for the

Lok Adalats organized by the Supreme Court Legal Services. Committee are to be

prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India

and for the Lok Adalats organized by the High Court Legal Service Committee are, to

be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with Chief Justice of the High

35

Sarkar, op. cit., p. 113. 36

Justice N.C. Jam, Legal aid, Its Scope and Effectiveness of the Legal Aid Rules, AIR 1996 (Journal

Section) pp. 184-186

112

Court. According to clause(ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19, a Lok Adalat has the

jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the

parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before any Court. Similarly, under

clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19, any matter which is at pre- litigative or pre-

trial stage and is falling within the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and has not been

brought before a Court of law can also be referred to it by the concerned authority or

committee. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 is of very wide amplitude. It confers the

widest possible jurisdiction on the Lok Adalat in the sense that the Lok Adalat can

deal with any matter irrespective of its legal character and irrespective of the Court or

Tribunal in which it might be pending and even when it is not so pending and is still at

a pre-trial stage. However, as per proviso to sub- section (5) of Section 19, criminal

matters relating to an offence which is not compoun1able have been kept outside the

purview of Lok Adalat but all others cases which do not fall under the proviso to sub-

section(5) of Section 19 come within the way of a Lok Adalat.37

5.14 Structural and functional character of a Lok Adalat

With the consideration of the structural and functional character of a Lok

Adalat as a whole, in the light of various provisions of Sections 19 to 22 there cannot

be any doubt to hold that a Lok Adalat under the Act is a court within the meaning of

this terms (i.e. Court) as defined by Section 2(aaa). By this defining clause, "court" is

defined as "a civil, criminal or revenue Court and includes any Tribunal or any other

Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or

quasi- judicial function." A fortiorari, the proceedings held by the Lok Adalat at its

sitting in determining and deciding a dispute on a reference of it, having been made

either under Section 21 or under Section 22, as the case may, are doubtedly the legal

proceedings.38

The jurisdiction that the Lok Adalat derives under sub- clause (5) of Section 19

is hedged by the expression "to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement".

In Legal terminology it connotes the jurisdiction that could be exercised by the Lok

Adalat cannot extend to deciding & dispute where one of the parties is not amenable

37

Abdul Hassan v. Del hi Vi d gut Board, AIR 1999 Del 88, see also S. K. Sarkar, op. cit ., pp.

113114. 38

A Ahmed Pasha v. C. Gulmaz Jabeen, AIR 2001 Kant, 423.

113

or agreeable to a compromise or settlement. The moment one of the parties to the

dispute expresses unwillingness to arrive at a compromise or settlement, the Lok

Adalat would stand stripped of its jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in any

manner.39

5.15 Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats

Section 20 provides:

(I) Wherein any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19;

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court for referring the

case to the Lok Adlat for settlement and if such court is prima fade satisfied that there

are chances of such settlement: or

(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken

cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, The Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of

clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of

being heard to the parties.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in

force, the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of

Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter

referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter to the Lok

Adalat, for determination:

Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.

(3) Where any cause is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section(1) or where

a reference has been made to it under sub-section(2), the Lok Adalat shall

proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or

settlement between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under

this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement

39

Commr.K.S.P. Instruction v. Nirupadi Virbhadprappa Shive, Air 2001 Kant 504 at 508.

114

between the parties and shall be guided by the principle of justice, equity, fair

play and other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no

compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record. of the

case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received

under subsection (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

(6) Where no record is made by the Lok Adalat, on the ground that no

compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred

to in subsection (2), that for Lok Adlat shall advise the parties to seek remedy in a

Court.

(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub- section (5) to the Court,

such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached

before such reference under sub-Section (1).40

5.15.1 Case referred to Lok Adalat

Effect of award passed by Lok Adalat settling case on basis of compromise but

not brought to the notice of Court when case came up for hearing:

To give effect to the object of the Act and executing the awards passed by the

Lok Adalat in its letter and spirit, following guidelines were issued to the Subordinate

Courts for compliance:-

I. Whenever the case / matter has been referred to the Lok Adalat, Notes

Paper I Oder Sheet must clearly show that it accused compliance of provision 20, i.e.,

the parties have been given, reasonable opportunity in referring the matter to Lok

Adalat;

II. When the Court refers the matter to Lok Adalat, it is to be specifically

recorded in the Notes Paper that the matter had been referred to the Lok Adalat under

Section 20(1). If possible, ( in cases other than Motor Accident Case) format may be

maintained in the Court which contains the satisfaction of the court and also that the

parties are agreeable to refer the matter to Lok Adalat and such format being signed

by the parties and also by the Presiding Officer;

40

Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

115

III. If the matter is settle, on receipt of records, the Presiding Officer should

record the settlement in the Notes / Paper / Order Sheet and also state that the suit has

been ordered in terms of the award passed by the Lok Adalat.

IV. When the case has not been settled and case records are sent back to the

Court under Section 20(5), for disposal in accordance with law, the Court shall record

the same in the Notes! Paper/Order Sheet that the matter has not been settled and then

proceeds to deal with the case from the stage which was reached before such

reference.41

5.15.2 Compliance with proviso to Section 20 condition precedent

The various sections of the Act excerpted hereinabove reveal that the

jurisdiction enjoyed by the Lok Adalat is limited to making an effort at bringing about

a settlement between the parties to the dispute with the object of disposing of the case

finally, thereby obviating the necessity of driving the parties to go up in reversion or

in appeal which is, in most cases, would become essential if the cases were to be

decided on merits. Sub-clause (5) of Section 19 of the Act well and truly defines and

demarcates the parameters beyond which the Lok Adalat cannot traverse. It is clear

case of "thus fair" and "no further" and any transgress this limit by the Lok Adalat

would render the proceedings a nullity. It was observed:

While the Lok Adalat had done its utmost to give effect to the first part of sub-

clause (4) in disposing of the reference with utmost expedition, but regrettably has

given a complete go by to the latter part of the clause which enjoys on it a duty to be

guided by the principles of justice, equity and fair play. What is more, the Lok Adalat

has gone overbroad by even brushing aside the remonstration of the Government

Pleader pleading his inability to enter into a compromise and proceeded to decide the

reference on merits which course was not open to it in law as it is totally lacking in

jurisdiction to decided a reference on merits, when one of the parties is unwilling to

enter into a compromise. However, any why this course was adopted by the Lok

Adalat is difficult to fathom. But suffice to say that the resultant award is hopelessly

without jurisdiction and contravenes the principles of justice, equity and fair play. Sub

41

M.I. Ibrahim Kutty V. Indian Overseas Bank, AIR 2005 Mad 335: IV (2005) BC 82.

116

rule (5) of Rule 20 postulates the only option that the Lok Adalat has to adopt where

Ino compromise or settlement is arrived at between the parties.

In Mansukhal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat,42

a defense was taken that

the judgment passed by the High Court cannot be questioned before the Apex Court as

it had become final. Dealing with said defense, the Apex Court held:

The contention that judgment passed by the High Court cannot be question in

these proceedings as it had become final is wholly devoid of substance. The appellant

had question the legality of the sanction on many grounds one of which was the

sanctioning authority did not apply its own mind and acted at the behest of the High

Court which issued a mandamus to sanction the prosecution. Since the correctness

and validity of the sanction was assailed before the Supreme Court, the High Court

judgment had necessarily to be considered and its impact on the sanction. The so-

called finality cannot shut out. the scrutiny of the judgment in terms of actus curia

neminem gravabit as the order of the High Court in directing the sanction to be

granted, besides being erroneous, was harmful to the interest of the appellant, who

had a valuable right off air trial at every stage, from the stage it began till the

conclusion of the proceedings.

Referring to above it was observed that it was a matter of record that the

Government is not willing to accede to the claim of the respondent that he belongs to

Simpi Cast. In such a situation it is always desirable that the Petitioner State should be

provided with an opportunity to defend its cause. If the State is prevented, from doing

so, under the guise of finality, it would lead to public injury and denial of a fair trial to

the State. It is essential that in the interest of justice such public injury must be

prevented, where necessary, by interference under Article 226 of the Constitution that

the question whether this Court would have jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 26

of the Constitution even in matters where the statute specifically excludes the

jurisdiction of "Courts" is also no longer reintegrate.

In Union of Indian v Narasimhalu,43

the Apex Court had occasion to deal with

the question whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is also excluded whereby clear

42

(1997) 7 SCC 622: 1997 AIR SCWR 3478; 1997 Cr1 LJ 4059. 43

1970 (2) SCR 145; 1969 (2) SCWR 446.

117

implication of the statute the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded. The Apex

Court after considerable discussion on the issue observes:

But the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit does

not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writ

against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial

tribunals. The finality may be declared by the statute qua certain liability either

by express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high

prerogative Writs.

The broader concept of justice would always demand adherence to the

fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Strict compliance with the provisions of

the statute concerned and refraining from exercising the powers not vested in it would

have ensured such adherence by the Lok Adalat. In the case on hand the order having

been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and in

addition, the order passed being not within the competence of the Lok Adalat, the

dicta in Union of India v. NaraSimhalu,44

would apply to the facts of this case on all

fours. In fact, the impugned order craves for the interference of High Court under

Article 226 of the constitution. (Commissioner of Karnataka State Public Instruction

(Education), Banglore v. Nirupadi Virbhadramppa Shiva Simspi).45

5.15.3 Lok Adalat - Can make an award touching rights of minor

The rigor of Order 32, Rule 7 need not, by itself, deter a Lok Adalat from

arriving at a compromise in a matter in which the interest of a minor is involved. In

the circumstances of the situation in which a minor is placed. It will be appropriate for

the Adalat to ensure that a compromise is entered and recorded on behalf of a minor

with the leave of the Adalat which could be granted on a proper application in that

regard, again having in mind the duty of the Lok Adalat to be guided by principles of

justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. So much so, if the next friend or

guardian of a minor applies to the Lok Adalat for leave to enter into any agreement or

compromise on behalf of the minor with reference to - the subject matter of the

reference before the Lok Adalat, it would be well within the jurisdiction and authority

44

1970 (2) SCR 145; 1969 (2) SCWR 446. 45

AIR Kant 504.

118

of the Lok Adalat to grant such leave on being satisfied that the agreement or

compromise is for the benefit of the minor. In granting such leave, it would be open-

to the Adalat to take stock of the entire fact situation and also insist on an affidavit

being filed by the guardian to the effect that the agreement or compromise proposed,

is for the benefit of minor.46

5.15.4 Cognizance of case by Lok Adalat - Suit for realization of money by Bank

In a case where case regarding suit for realization of money by Bank was

referred to Lok Adalat by Court on being agreed by parties. Hearing opportunity was

also given to defendant before referring matter. Defendant was willing to compromise

and had also signed award. Defendant was estopped from challenging finality of

award. Every award of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a Decree of a Civil Court. Conduct

of defendant is not brought to notice of Court while hearing Suit about award passed

by Lok Adalat was deprecated. Format 1 was filed for passing award. It was held that

though, not statutorily prescribed, reading terms of award brings award at par with

decree. 47

5.15.5 Compliance with the proviso to Section 20 is condition precedent for

reference by the Civil Court

The power to refer the case to Lok Adalat vested in the civil Court under

Section 20 of the Act being subject to the rider as contained in the proviso, any

reference either under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) will be invalid if the

parties are not heard in the matter. When the reference made is not valid in the eye of

law, the Lok Adalat would not derive jurisdiction to determine any dispute and the

Lok Adalat cannot take cognizance of the case under sub clause (3) of section 20.

The Civil Court has given a short shrift to section 20 of the Act and has

referred the matter to the Lok Adalat without the consent of the defendants for such

reference. The civil court has given a short shift to section 20 of the Act and has

referred the matter to the Lok Adalat without the consent of the defendants for such

reference. The civil court even if prim facie is satisfied under sub-clause (b) of clause

(i) that there are chances of settlement, still it is barred from acting there under if the

46

Merlin v. Yesudas, AIR 2007 Ker 199 at 201 47

Mi Ibrahim Kutty v. Indian Overseas Bank, AIR 2005 Mad 335: 2005 (33) AIC 339 (Mad) : IV

(2005) -BC 82.

119

proviso section 20 is not complied with by giving a reasonable opportunity.

Compliance with the proviso to section 20 is condition precedent for reference by the

Civil Court. In this case, the Civil Court having referred the matter without complying

with the proviso to section 20 is bad in law.48

5.15.6 Consent of both parties is a condition precedent for award of Lok Adalat

Consent of both parties is a condition precedent for any lawful order which

could be passed by Lok Adalat, so as to bind parties. In succession certificate, there

was dispute between mother and wife of deceased. Mother was neither present nor any

joint application had been filed on her behalf, asking for settlement between the

parties; Award passed by Lok Adalat was vence illegal.49

5.15.7 For exercise of power under Section 20 of the Act of 1987 existence of

element of settlement is an essential ingredient

From the ratio laid down in State of Punjab and Other v. Phulan Rani,50

by the

Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that power under Section 20 of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987 could be resorted to only when compromise or settlement

between the parties is arrived at. But in the present case, the fast Track Court passed

judgment and order dated 23.12.2002 by assuming the jurisdiction under Section 89 of

the Cr.P.C., which he does not have, as there is total missing of jurisdictional facts

that is existence of element of settlement" between the present writ petitioners and

respondents. Therefore, the Fast Track Court had acted beyond the bounds of his

jurisdiction under Section 89 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, for keeping the Fast Track Court

within the bounds of its jurisdiction, the present application under article 227 of the

Constitution of India was maintainable. Further the juridical conscience of High Court

dictate that there should be inordinate delay in disposing the said suit filed before the

Fast Track Court by the respondents against the present petitioners if the impugned

order dated 23.12.2002 was not interfered with.51

48

Commr. K.S.P. Instruction v. Nirupadi Virbhadrappa Shiva, AIR 2001 kant 504 at 507,508 49

Devi. Hans v. Beena Singh, AIR 2005 All 349 50

(2004) 7 SCC 555: AIR 2004 Sc 4105 51

Union of India v. Ongbi Ibeyaima Devi, 2005 (36) AIC 721 (Gau)

120

5.15.8 Hearing of parties

The power to refer the case to Lok Adalat vested in the civil Court under

Section 20 of the Act being subject to the rider as contained in the proviso, any

reference either under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) will be invalid if the

parties are not heard in the matter. When the reference made is not valid in the eye of

law, the Lok Adalat would not derive jurisdiction to determine any dispute and the

Lok Adalat cannot take cognizance of the case under sub- clause(3) of Section 20. The

Civil Court even if prima facie is satisfied under sub clause (b) of clause (i) that there

are chances of settlement, still it is bared from acting thereunder if the proviso to

Section 20 is not complied with by giving a reasonable opportunity. Compliance with

the proviso to Section 20 is condition precedent for reference by the civil Court.52

5.15.9 Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998, Regn.33-

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 -Award passed in violation of all statutory

provisions and against principles of natural justice liable to be quashed

Where the award for recovery of loan was alleged to have been passed on

compromise. No notice was issued to the petitioner, borrower and co-obligates to put

forward their case. They were neither heard by District Authority nor were made

aware of settlement. Parties were not shown to have subscribed their signatures to

original award. Procedure for maintaining record of case as provided under regulation

was not followed. It was Held that as award was passed in violation of all statutory

provisions and also against principles of natural justice, hence it was liable to be

quashed.53

5.15.10 Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998. Regn.33Validity

award in recovery of loan by bank

Where neither suit was filed for Court fee was paid by Bank and no litigation

expenses were incurred. Petitioner, borrower bad agreed to repay the entire amount

with interest even after disposal of case until entire amount was paid. The matter was

referred to Lok Adalat and award was passed. Terms of award showed that the

petitioners had no gain or advantage by arriving at such a compromise. As other

52

Commissioner of Karnataka State Public Instruction (Education), Banglore v. Nirupa di

Virhadrappa Shiva SimpIi, AIR 2001 Kant 504 53

Morni Mathal v. federal bank Ltd., AIR 2003 Ker. 164.

121

petitioners, co-obligates were not shown to have been told about the dispute and that

they had agreed to pay the entire amount with agreed rate of interest, hence, it could

be said that petitioners were missed by Bank officials.54

5.15.11 Lok Adalat could only pass a consent decree

Lok Adalat could not adjudicate upon rights of parties unless there was

compromise or settlement between the parties. It was held that it could only pass a

consent decree.55

5. 15.12 Lok Adalat-Jurisdiction and powers

The specific language used in subsection (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that

the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between

the parties. Two crucial terms in subsection (3) and (5) of Section 20 are

"compromise" and "settlement". The former expression means settlement of

differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of

conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per terms

de la Ley, "compromise is mutual promise of two or more parties that are at

controversy. As per Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or more persons, who, to

avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree

upon". The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each

side. It is not apt to describe it as total surrender (See Re: NFE Development Trust

Ltd.).56

A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. "Settlement"

is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. 57

5.15.13 Lok Adalat -Power of disposal of cases

Power of disposal of cases is limited to cases where matter could be disposed

of by way of settlement or compromise between parties. Writ petition was filed

claiming 18% interest on delayed payment of retrial benefits. Matter was referred to

Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat had granted 12% interest without any settlement/compromise

54

Ibid. 55

Santosh Gupta v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay, AIR NOC 118 (P&H): 2003 AIHC

4030. 56

1973 1 All ER 135 ( Ch.D)

57State of Punjab v. Shri Ganpati Raj, AIR 2006 SC 3089: (2006) 8 5CC 364; 2006 (48) AIC 561 at

563 (SC)

122

between parties. Order of Lok Adalat was beyond its powers. Dismissal of writ

petition challenging order of Lok Adalat was clearly impermissible.58

5.15.14 Lok Adalat-scope & powers of

Lok Adalat can pass order only when there is compromise between parties.

Directions for appointment of Arbitrator passed by Lok Adalat when there was no

compromise was without jurisdiction. Order of High Court appointing arbitrator in

terms of order of Lok Adalat did not save it on the basis of doctrine of merger.59

5.15.15 Matters that could be disposed of by Lok Adalat

Lok Adalat has to dispose of matter by way of compromise or settlement. If

there was no compromise or settlement or could be arrived at, no order could be

passed by Lok Adalat. Where petitioner had claimed pension, as the case did not

involve compromise, or settlement, hence, it could not have been disposed of by Lok

Adalat. Supreme Court observed that High Court holding that even if disposal by the

Lok Adalat was not the proper course, yet on merits employee was entitled to relief,

was not proper.60

5.15.16 Parties

Unless there is fraud or collusion or there are other circumstances which

indicate that there has not been a fair or real trial or that against the absent heir there

was a special case which was not and could not be tried in the proceedings, there is no

reason why the heirs who have applied for being brought on record should not be held

to represent the entire estate including the interests of the heirs not brought on record.

This is not to say that where heirs of an appellant are to be-brought on record all-of-

them should not be brought on record and any of them should be deliberately left out.

But if by oversight or on account of some doubt as to who are the heirs, any heir of a

deceased appellant is left out that in itself would be no reason for holding that the

entire estate of the deceased is not represented unless circumstance like fraud or

collusion to which we have referred above exist.61

58

State of Punjab v. Shri Ganpati Raj, AIR 2006 SC 3089 59

Union of India v. Ananto, AIR 2007 SC 1561. 60

State of Punjab v. Phulan Rani, AIR 2004 Sc 4105. 61

Dalai Malika v. Kriushna Chandra Patnaik, AIR 1967 SC 49: 33 CUT LT 1: 19966 Supp SCR 22.

123

5.15.17 Procedure which is to be followed by Court or Tribunal

A reading of the section per se reveals that sine qua non for taking cognizance

of cases by Lok Adalat in filing of joint application by all the parties to the suit or

proceeding indicating their intention to compromise the matter or to arrive at a

settlement, and when such application is made, then the section mandates that the

presiding officer of the Court or Tribunal instead of proceeding to effect a

compromise between the parties or to arrive at a settlement himself he may pass an

order that the suit or proceeding shall stand transferred to the Lok Adalat for arriving

at a compromise or settlement between the parties to the suit. The expression used

"parties to the suit" indicates that the compromise is to be entered into between all the

parties to the suit. In the instant case, the tenor or the language of the parties tlereof

make a joint application of court or Tribunal indicating their intention to compromise

the matter to arrive at a settlement per se reveals that if all the parties to suit or for

proceeding make a joint application to compromise or settle the dispute by agreement

then civil Court or Tribunal has to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. It does not indicate

that if some of the parties to the suit make a joint application, while the other do not,

even then it will get jurisdiction to transfer the matter to the Lok Adalat for decision.62

5.15.18 Purpose of reference under Section 20 - To explore the possibility of

conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency

On plain language of Section 20 it is seen that the Court before whom the case

is instituted shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto

agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum. But when only one of the

parties to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the

Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to

the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the

Court should be prima fade satisfied that there are chances of such settlement.

Whereas, the third situation perceived by clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 20

enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that

matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third

62

Krishan Rao V. Bihar State Legal Services Authority, AIR 2001 Kant 407 at 410.

124

category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for

reference does not arise. But the quintessence of invoking this provision is that the

Court must be satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of

by the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section

(I), before making reference, the court shall give opportunity of being heard to the

parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contended that the Court has no

authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an

appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. Held, it is wholly

unnecessary for the court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The

purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the

mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and

statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok

Adalat is obviously for conciliation.63

5.15.19 Requirement of sending case to concerned Court is to be complied with

even where case is settled by way of compromise in Lok Adalat

As per Section 20 (5), when no compromise or settlement could be arrived

between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned to the concerned Court for

disposal in accordance with law. Where the record of the case is returned under

Section 20 (5) of the Act, the Court shall proceed to deal with such cases from the

stage it was pending 9 before such reference was made under Section 20(l).Pointing

out that in this case, records of the case were sent back to the Court, the Counsel for

the revision petitioner urges the Court to infer that there was no

compromise/settlement lest the records would not have been sent back to the Court.

No doubt Section 20(5) states that when the Lok Adalat is not in a position to arrive at

a compromise or settlement, the records of the case are to be returned to the concerned

court for disposal in accordance with law. But the converse is not true. It is the matter

of experience that the case referred to Lok Adalat whether settled or not settled, the

case records are sent back to the concerned court. Reason being, neither the Lok

Adalat nor the Legal Services Authority have the infrastructure (like Court record

room etc.) and man power to retain and maintaining the case records. Of course,

63

Pushpa Suresh Bhutada v. Subash Babnsilal Maheshwari, AIR 2002 Born. 126 at 128

125

Section 20 does not specifically state as to what would happen to the case records if

matter is settled in the Lok Adalat. Section 20(5) only contemplates the situation

where Lok Adalat is not in a position to arrive at a compromise or settlement. That

does not mean that whenever records are sent back to the Court, it leads to an

inference that the matter was not settled. For instance, if in a case of equitable

mortgage where there is deposit of title deeds, if the matter has been referred to the

Lok Adalat and matter is- settled after payment of amount, the document is to be

performed only by the concerned Court. Hence, it is a matter of reasonableness and

experience that whether the case is being settled or not, case records are to be

necessarily sent back to the Court concerned. The contention of the defendant that

from the circumstances that records are being sent back to the concerned Court, urging

the Court to draw inference of non-settlement, has no force.64

5.15.20 Suit filed before Family Court for realization of certain amouñt-Válidity

of matter taken up by Lok Adalat presided over by Judge, Family Court

Suit was filed before Family Court for realization of amount of Rs. 1,74,850/-

with 12% interest and for future maintenance of children at the rate Rs. 750/- p.m.

Counter petition was filed by respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Matter was

taken up by Lok Adalat presided over by Judge, Family Court. Apart from giving an

award saying defendant- respondent had agreed to pay Rs. 300/- p.m. each to the two

minor children as maintenance, as well as the marriage expenses of the daughter and

further saying "all other matters will be settled". Held that award did not reflect the

final settlement of issued/disputes between the parties. Held that award did not

conform to the provisions of the Act and regulations. Writ petition against award was

maintainable. Impugned award was set aside and original suit was restored to its

original number along with Misc. Case. Family court was directed to dispose of the

O.S. and the Misc. Case in accordance with law.65

64

M.I. Ibrahim Kutty v. Indian Overseas Bank, AIR 2005 Mad. 335 at 341-342: IV (2005) BC 82. 65

KrishnaKumari V. Venugopal, 2005 (3) AIC 449 (Ker.)

126

5.15.21 The purpose of reference under Section 20 - To explore the possibility of

conciliation with the mediation of an independent agency

On plain language of Section 20 it is seen that, the Court before whom the case

is instituted shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto

agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before the forum. But when only one of the

party to the dispute makes an application to the Court for reference of the case to the

Lok Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court shall refer the dispute to

the Lok Adalat for settlement, but in this case the additional requirement is that the

Court should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement.

Whereas the third situation perceived by clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 20

enables the Court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied that the

matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third

category, whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly, agree for

reference does not arise, but the quintessence of invoking this provision is that the

Court must be satisfied that the matter is appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by

the Lok Adalat and nothing more. However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (I)

before making reference, the Court shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to

the parties. A fortiori, it will be preposterous to hold as contended that the Court has

no authority to refer a case on its own even though it is satisfied that the case is an

appropriate one for reference to the Lok Adalat for settlement. Held, it is wholly

unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are chances of settlement. The

purpose of such reference is to explore the possibility of conciliation with the

mediation of an independent agency which has the expertise in that behalf and

statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of relegating the parties first to the Lok

Adalat is obviously for conciliation.66

5.15.22 Words and Phrases-Compromise "Meaning of"

The specific language used in sub-section-(3) of Section 20 makes it clear that

the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of compromise or settlement between

the parties. Two crucial terms in sub-section (3) and (5) of Section 20 are

"compromise" and settlement". It is an agreement reached by adjustment of

66

Pushpa Suresh Bhutada v. Subhash Bansilalmaheshwari, AIR 2002 Born 126 at 128.

127

conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Termes

de la Ley, "compromise is a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at

controversy." As per Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or more persons, who,

to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their difference, on such terms as they can agree

upon". The word _compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each

side. I is not apt to describe total surrender. (See Re : NFE Development Trust Ltd.,

(1973) 1 All ER 135 (Ch.D). A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual

adjustment. "Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. The

case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been

disposed by Lok Adalat. and no compromise or settlement could be arrived at, no

order could be passed by the Lod Adalat.67

5.16 Award of Lok Adalat

1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil

Court or as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or

settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to under sub-section

(1) of Section 20, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner

provided under the Court Fees Act (7 of 1870).

2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the

parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

5.16.1Appeal - Award by Lok Adalat is not appealable

In view of the statutory provisions, viz., Section 21, it was apparent that no

appeal is provided for against the award of the Lok Adalat. However, the award could

be made by the Lok Adalat only when it was based on a compromise or settlement

arrived at between the partie s and in the manner prescribed under Section 20 of the

Act. Section20 indicates that there must be an application indicating the intention to

compromise the matter or to arrive at a settlement. Secondly the parties must have

entered into a compromise or arrived at settlement before Lok Adalat, It was thus

apparent that consent of both the parties was condition precedent for any lawful order

could be passed by the Lok Adalat so as to bind the parties.68

67

State of Punjab vs. Ganpati Raj, AIR 2006 SC 3089 at 3091: (2006) 8 SCC 364: 2006 (48) AIC 561. 68

JaiDevi hans v. Bena Singh, AIR 2005 All 349.

128

5.16.2 Appeal against award not maintainable

In the light of the law and facts held that an award pass by a Lok Adalat,

conducted by any of the authorities, as per the provisions of the Act, cannot be

challenged through the regular remedies available under the law, including under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no appeal will lay, following the

principle in Moth Mathai v. Federal Bank of India,69

and Thomas Job v. P.T.

Thomas,70

P.K. Rajeswari v. P.K. Soorah Kumar.71

5.16.3 Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. would not lie against an award made by a

Lok Adalat

Lok Adalats have been conferred power of the civil Court under the C.P.C. in

respect of matters such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witnesses

and examining him on oath, discovery and production of any documents, reception of

evidence on affidavits, requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of

such record or document from any Court or officer and such other matters as may be

prescribed. It cannot be said that by implication, appeal under Section96, C.P.C.

would lie against the award of Lok Adalat as there is specific prohibition contained in

Section 2 1(2) of the Act. Therefore, it was held that the provisions of Section 96

C.P.C. are not applicable to file an appeal against the award of Lok Adalat.72

5.16.4 Award by Lok Adalat- Doctrine of non-transversal

In the case of award by Lok Adalat, doctrine of non-transverse could not be

applied since it is empowered to make an award only on the basis of compromise or

settlement between the parties.73

5.16.5 Background

The then Executive Chairman of the NALSA, Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, the then

Chief Justice of India, in regard to the Lok Adalats had observed...............The Awards

passed by Lok Adalat Judges are now deemed to be decrees of a civil Court and the

Court fee paid in such cases is liable to be refunded in the manner provided under the

69

AIR 2003 Ker. 164. 70

AIR 2004 ker. 47. 71

AIR 2006 ker. 137. 72

Punjab National Bank v. Laxmichand Rai, AIR 2000 MP 301 at 304 73

Original Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee; AIR 2007 (NOC)

1177 (CAL).

129

Court Fees Act, 1870. These awards are final and binding on all the parties to the

dispute and no appeal lies to any court against these Awards. It is thus very important

that we should put these provisions in active use and try our best to hold as many Lok

Adalats as possible and include therein different categories of cases like matrimonial

disputes, Bank loan matters, land acquisition cases, matters relating to industrial

disputes, landlord-tenant controversies and petty criminal cases etc. The cases

between different departments of the Government, State owned corporations etc can

also be settled through Lok Adalats. This however, would be possible ifyou initiate a

dialogue with the State Government to persuade them to settle their disputes through

Lok Adalats instead of resorting to litigation which is not only expensive and puts

additional financial burden on the government, but is time consuming also...... it

5.16.6 Bar as to applicability of Section 21 (2) for filing of appeal

Bar against filing of appeal under Section 2 1(2) of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987 did not apply as the Act had come into force on 9th

November,1995 ( See Gazette of India, 9th November, 1995, pt. II, Section 3 (iii),

Extra., (No 626) while the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 21st

February, 1993.74

5.16.7 Court executing award has no jurisdiction to extend time to make deposit

Where it was stipulated in the award that decree- holder shall deposit amount

of consideration within two years of date of award and defendant judgment-debtor

shall thereafter execute sale deed of suit property in favor of decree-holder the

Decree-holder had failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time held that

Court executing award had no jurisdiction to vary the terms of the award or extend the

time to make deposit.75

5.16.8 Court executing award passed by Lok Adalat could not vary its terms

By no stretch of imagination it can be held that an award passed by the Lok

Adalat, though by a legal fiction created in Section 21 is equated to a decree, can be

treated as a compromise decree passed by the Civil Court. The distinction is that in a

case pending before a Civil Court when the parties enter into a compromise and invite

74

State Bank of Indore v. Balaji Traders, AIR 2003 MP 252 (Gwalior Bench). 75

Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas, AIR 2004 Ker 47.

130

the Court to make an order in terms of the compromise, the Court passes a decree in

terms of the compromise. When the terms of compromise become integral part of the

decree passed by the Court and if a time is fixed for doing a particular act in that

decree, the Court gets jurisdiction to extend that time in appropriate cases. But, the

Lok Adalat is not a Court and does not possess any of the powers of a Civil Court

conferred on it under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a body

created under the provisions of a statue and is having only those powers conferred on

it under the provisions of the Legal Services Authority' Act. The Lok Adalat only

certified an agreement entered into between two parties as true and the original award

itself is to be signed by the parties and the panel constituting the Lok Adalat. There is

no provisison which enables a party to a compromise decree to affix his signature in

the decree. So, the time fixed by the parties for the performance of a particular act and

reduced. into writing and signed by the parties and attested by the panel of Lok Adalat

stands on an entirely different footing from a compromise decree passed by a Civil

Court. So, the Civil Court gets no jurisdiction to vary the terms of the award or extend

the time agreed to between the parties to such an award. (Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas,

AIR 2004 Ker 47 at 50).

5.16.9 Decree :Section 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 defines decree as under

(2) 'Decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as

regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with

regard to all or any of 'the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either

preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the

determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include-

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be

taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication

completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;

131

5.16.10 Execution of award of Lok Adalat-Order of High Court dismissing

petition for execution of award not proper

Suit for possession was decreed in favor of appellant decree-holder and

pending appeal dispute referred to Lok Adalat. Award was passed by Lok Adalat on

the basis of compromise. Award provided for sale of scheduled property to appellant

on payment of sum within two years. Plea of respondent was that execution of sale

deed could not take place due to default on the part of appellant. Notice and telegram

were issued requiring respondent to execute sale deed as directed in award.

Respondent did not receive notice and it was returned unsaved. No obligation was cast

on appellant to examine postman. Presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act

was attracted. Obligation was on respondent to evidence his willingness to execute

sale deed within two years and not on appellant as assumed by High Court. Order of

High Court dismissing petition for execution of award filed by appellant was not

proper. P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, AIR 2005 SC 3575: (2005) 6 SCC 478).

5.16.11 Execution of award passed by Lok Adalat - pecuniary jurisdiction of

Civil Court

Valuation of suit for purposes of court fees was Rs. 85,000/- i.e. within

pecuniary jurisdiction of court of Munsif. Matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Award

was passed by Lok Adalat for payment of Rs. 2,60,000/- it was executable by court of

Munsif itself even if decree amount exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction.76

5.16.12 Finality of award

Every compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure

shall be presumed to be lawful unless it is proved to the contrary. An admission by the

tenant about the existence of statutory ground, expressly or impliedly will be

sufficient and there need not be any evidence before the court on the merits of the

grounds before the compromise order is passed. If there is an admission of the tenant

it will not be open to him to challenge its correctness as the admissions made in

judicial proceedings are absolutely binding on the parties. At any rate decree cannot

be called a nullity to enable the executing court to go behind it.77

76

Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas, AIR 2004 Ker 47

77Hiralal Moolchand doshi v. Barot Raman Lai Ranchhoddas, AIR 1993 SC 1449: 1993 (2) SCC 450

132

The finality attached to the award does not preclude judicial review under

article 226 of the Constitution; See the following observations of the Court in this

regard: "It is essential that in the interest of justice such public injury must be

prevented, where necessary, by interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. In

commissioner of Karnataka State Public Instruction (Education) Banglore v. Nirupadi

Virbhandrappa Shiva Simpli78

it was observed that the question whether this Court

would have jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution even in

matters where the statute specifically excludes the jurisdiction of 'court' is also no

longer res integra. In Union of India v. NaraSimhalu,79

the Apex Court had occasion

to deal with the question whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is also excluded

whereby clear implication of the statute the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded.

The Apex Court after considerable discussion on the issue observed:

But the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit does

not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writ against

illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals. The finality

.which may be declared by the statute qua certain liability either by express exclusion

of the jurisdiction of the civil Court or by clear implication does not affect the

jurisdiction of the High Court to issue its prerogative writs.

The broader concept of justice would always demand adherence to the

fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Strict compliance with the provisions of

the statute concerned and refraining from exercising the powers not vested in it would

have ensured such adherence by the Lok Adalat. In the case on hand, the order having

been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and in

addition, the order passed being not within the competence of the Lok Adalat, the

dicta in Union of India v. Narasimhalu,80

would apply to the facts of this case on all

fours. In fact, the impugned order craves for the interference of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution. Also see Commissioner of Karnataka State Public

78

AIR 2001 kant 504. 79

1970 (2) SCR 145: 1969 (2) SCWR 446. 80

1970 (2) SCR 145: 1969 (2) SCWR 446.

133

Instruction (Education), Banglore v. Nirupadi Virhandrappa Shiva Simpli.81

Therefore in appropriate case the remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution is available to challenge the award of Lok Adalat. Even to a challenge by

way of suit is not entirely precluded. See the following observation of the Supreme

Court:

Even where the statute has given finality to the orders of the special tribunal

the civil Court's jurisdiction can, be regarded as having been excluded if there is

adequate remedy to do what the civil Court would normally do in a suit. In other

words, even - where finality is accorded to the orders passed by the special tribunal

one will have to see whether such special tribunal has powers to grant relief which

civil Court would be difficult to imply or infer exclusion of civil Court's jurisdiction.82

An onerous provision may be ground for entertaining a writ petition on the

ground: that the alternative remedy provided by the statute is not a adequate or

efficacious remedy.... But that can never be a ground for maintaining a civil suit both

the jurisdictions are different and governed by different principles. Article 226

provides a constitutional remedy. It confers the power of judicial review on High

Courts. The finality clause in a statute is not a bar to exercise this constitutional power

whereas the jurisdiction of a civil Court arises from another statute, viz., Section 9 of

the Code of Civil Procedure.83

The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Courts must either be explicitly

expressed or clearly implied. Further even if the jurisdiction is so excluded the civil

Courts have jurisdiction to examine into the cases where the provisions of the Act

have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity

with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.84

5.16.13 Insurance claim- Award of Lok Adalat just and proper

Deceased died due to sudden drowning in a village well. Deceased were a

Government servant and member of Group Insurance Scheme. Brother of deceased

who was not on speaking terms with him had lodged false report of his committing 81

AIR 2001 kant 504. 82

State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigat Madam, 1984 (4)SCC 10: 1985 Supp (1) SCR 3. 83

Srikant Kashinath Jituri v. Corporation of the city of Belgaum, AIR 1995 Sc 288: 1994 (6) 5CC 572. 84

Shree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannadharao Panthulu Badadu Gary v. State of Andhra

Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 71

134

suicide. Death of deceased was accidental. Additional Director of State Insurance and

G.R.F. Deptt. (General Insurance Fund) was made party before Lok Adalat by

claimant wife of deceased. Award of Lok Adalat was just and proper as it had

considered all necessary facts and relevant material and after subjective satisfaction

had passed award.85

5.16.14 No appeal is maintainable against an award made by the Lok Adalats

The provision has been made in the Act itself under Section 21(2) that no

appeal shall lie to any court against the award made by Lok Adalat. The award shall

be final and binding on all the parties to the case. In the instant case, parties arrived at

a consensus that entire sum be decreed and the rate of interest and number and period

of installments are left to the Court's discretion. The discretion exercised by the Court

also formed part of the consensus reached between the parties and the award so made

on the basis of such a consent attains finality under the provisions of Section 2 1(2) of

the Legal Services Authorities Act.86

5.16.15 No appeal lies from award of Lok Adalat under C.P.C. Section 96(3):

The Lok Adalat shall proceed and dispose the case and arrive at a compromise

or settlement by following the legal principles, equity and natural justice. Ultimately

the Lok Adalat passes an award, and every such award shall be deemed to be a decree

of Civil Court or as the case may be which is final. The Lok Adalat will pass the

award with the consent of the parties, therefore, there is no need either to reconsider or

review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be

final. Even as under Section 96(3) of C.P.C. that "no appeal shall lie from a decree

passed by the Court with the consent of the parties." The award of the Lok Adalat is

an order by the Lod Adalat under the consent of the parties, and it shall be deemed

tobe a decree of the Civil Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the

Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3), C.P.C.87

5.16.16 Object

This is a very useful and important provision. The provision is meant to give

finality to the decision of the Lok Adalat. Again under Section 21 of the Act, in the

85

State of Rajasthan v. Silochana Devi, AIR 2006 Raj 5. 86

Punjab National Bank v. Laxmichand Rai, AIR 200 MP 301 at 303. 87

P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, AIR 2005 SC 3575: (2005) 6 SCC 478.

135

event of a resolution of a dispute by the Lok Adalat in a case referred to it by a court

of law, the court-fee is required to be refunded in the manner provided under the Court

Fee Act, 1879.88

5.16.17 Refund of Court Fee

Following provisions of Court Fee Act govern the refund of court fee:-

Refund of fee paid on memorandum of appeal.- In an appeal or plaint, which

has been rejected by the lower court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of

Civil Procedure, is ordered to be received, or if a suit is remanded in appeal, on any of

the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the same Code, for a second decision by the

lower Court, the Appellate Court shall grant to the appellant a certificate, authorizing

him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fee paid on the

memorandum of appeal:

Provided that, if in the case of a remand in appeal, the order of remand shall not

cover the whole of the subject- matter of the suit, certificate so granted shall not

authorize the appellant to receive back more than so much fee as would have been

originally payable on the part or parts of such subject-matter in respect whereof the

suit has been remanded.

Refund of fee on application for review of judgment.- Where an application for

a review of judgment is presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the

decree, the Court, unless the delay was caused by the applicant's laches, may, in its

discretion, grant him a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector

so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would have been

payable had it been presented before such day.

Refund where Court reverse or modified its former decision on ground of mistake.-

Where an application for review of judgment is admitted and where on the

rehearing, the court reverses or modifies its former decision on the ground of mistake

in law or fact, the applicant shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court

authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the

application as exceeds the fee payable, on any other application to such Court under

the Second Schedule to this Act No. 1 Clause (b) or clause (d).

88

Abdul Hassan v. Delhi Vidyut Board, AIR 1999 Del. 88.

136

But nothing in the former part of this Section shall entitle the applicant to such

certificate where the reversal .or modification is due, wholly or in part to fresh

evidence which might have been produced at the original hearing.

5.16.18 Subordinate Court before which suit was filed was competent to execute

award:

Though section 21 provides that the award shall be deemed to be a decree of

the court, the manner of execution is not stated in the said section. The Court which is

competent to execute the award passed by the Lok Adalat is also not stated. In this

connection, it is pertinent to note that under section 19 of the Legal Services Authority

Act, 1987, Lok Adalat has got jurisdiction not only to determine and arrive at

compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of a pending case

alone, but not a matter which is falling under the jurisdiction or before any court. So

an award can be passed in pre-litigative stage also. Even in such cases, the Court

which is competent to execute the award is not stated in the section. In this case the

award was passed in the appeal while the same was pending before the District court.

The appeal was from a suit which was pending before te Subordinate Judge's Court

that court can execute the award passed by the Lok Adalat.89

5.18 Haryana State legal Service Authority:

Haryana State Legal Services Authority has leveraged the important

mechanism of 'Lok Adalat' an effective alternative dispute resolution method for

ensuring quick and final consensual dispose cases binding on the parties, without

incurring any extra cost or fees. Various kinds of Lok Ad at are organized by Haryana

State Legal Services Authority.

(a) Scheduled Lok Adalats

HALSA is organizing scheduled Lok Adalats in all the districts courts and sub

divisional Haryana from time to time as per schedule prepared by DLSAs. In these

Lok Adalats cases of all nature are taken up by different Lok Adalat benches presided

by judicial and members. These Lok Adalats have proved to be very successful,

particularly with MACT Cases.

89

Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas, AIR 2004 ker 47 at 50.

137

(b) Mobile/Rural Lok Adalats

HALSA is organizing Mobile/Rural Lok Adalats in the villages to make

speedily and justice available to the people at their door step by amicable resolution of

their disputes through mediation/conciliation by the respectable of the village and

Village Gram Panchayats. In the Mobile/Rural Lok Adalats, all the pending cases in

the courts as well as cases at pre-litigation of such village and adjoining villages are

taken up for settlement.

Earlier these rural Lok Adalats were presided over by judicial officers by

rotaiion. How since October, 2011, these Adalats are attended by Panel Advocates and

Para Legal Volume who make efforts to bring parties together in all pending matters

of that area, which rural Lok Adalat takes place, to arrive at acceptable settlement.

Similar efforts are made in pre-litigation matters of that area. The cases, in which

parties agree for settlement, are the take up in forthcoming Lok Adalat.

(C) Permanent Lok Adalats (Public Utility Services)

On the initiative of HALSA, the Haryana Government sanctioned administra-

tive for permanent Lok Adalats (PLA5) pertaining to public utility services at the four

divisi and headquarters i.e. Ambala, Rohtak, Gurgaon and Hissar.Later, two more

PLAs were at Faridabad and Panchkula. At present, six PLAs are functioning in the

state. The state government has also agreed to sanction five more at Rewari,. Bhiwani,

Sirsa, Sonepat Karnal, which shall start functioning shortly. These eleven PLAs will

have jurisdiction for the 21 districts of Haryana, as follows:

Sr.

No.

Place of PLA (PUS) Districts covered

(By ho1d.iHg canip court)

i. Ambala Kurukshetra & Kaithal

ii. Panchkula Yamuna Nagar

iii. Rohtak Jhajjar & Sonepat

iv. Gurgaon Mewat

v. Faridabad Palwal

vi. Hissar Bhiwani

vii. Karnal Karnal & Kurukshetra

viii. Rewari Rewari & Narnaul

138

ix. Sonepat Sonepat & Panipat

x. Sirsa Sirsa & Farehabad

xi. Bhiwani Bhiwani & Jind

In such Lok Adalats, case relating to Public utility services: namely

(i) transport service for the carriage or passengers or goods by air, mad or

water; or

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or

(iv) System of public conservancy or sanitation; or

(v) Service in hospital or dispensary; or

(vi) insurance service

(vii) housing and estates

(viii) banking and finance, are settled without any expenditure and at the

earliest, up to the value of Rs. 25 lakh.

(D) Daily Lok Adalat

Daily Lok Adalats were first started in Sonepat district. After the encouraging

results, these daily Lok Adalats were started in the remaining districts. At present,

daily Lok Adalats are being held in all the 21 districts.

Every, court of the sessions division, after court hours, gets converted into

daily Lok Adalat and judicial officers hold sittings for this depending upon the

workload of cases coming for settlement every day in each court. This way, there are

as many daily Lok Adalats as the number of courts in that sessions division. A daily

Lok Adalat is assisted by one lawyer or social worker on the panel.

5.18 Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalats (PMLA)

1.The National Commission for Women (NCW) has evolved the concept of

Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalat, which in turn supplements the efforts of the District

Legal Service Authority (DLSA) for redressal and speedy disposal of the matter

pending in various courts related to marriage and family affairs.

139

2.Objectives of Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalat: To provide speedy and cost free

dispensation of justice to women. To generate awareness among the public regarding

conciliatory mode of dispute settlement.

3.To gear up the process of organizing the Lok Adalats and to encourage the

public to settle their disputes outside the formal set-up. To empower public especially

women to participate injustice delivery mechanism.

4.Methodology: The Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalat functions on the model of

the Lok Adalat. The commission provides financial assistance to NGOs or State

Women Commissions or State Legal Service Authority to organize the Parivarik

Mahila Lok Adalat

5.Benefits of Lok Adalat : Cases are amicably settled by the parties in

aharmonious atmosphere. It saves time, effort and expenses. Long pending disputes in

the courts can be settled through the Lok Adalat expeditiously. Copies of decisions of

the Lok Adalat are given to the parties free of cost. The decision of the Lok Adalat is

final and there is no appeal against the same.

6.Validity of Award of Lok Adalat : Under the Legal Service Authority Act,

1987, the.decisions of the Lok Adalat have legal validity. The award of the Lok

Adalat has the same force as a decree of the Court of Law. The decisions of the Lok

Adalat are based on terms of-mutual consent of the parties. The decisions of the Lok

Adalat are binding on the parties.

7. How to Organize PMLA? The NUOs approach the DLSA or District Judge

and collect information about pending cases of family disputes within the district. The

DLSA selects women related cases which are admissible in the Lok Adalat, and

makes relevant files/case papers available to the NGOs. It is expected that minimum

60 cases shall be taken up for handling in PMLA. NGOs should take written

permission from DLSA to do the counseling in selected cases.

Old Law:

One of the several benefits of the British rule over India was that we got some

very robust laws. Several of these exist till date (after 60 years of Independence)

without any major amendments. However, the flip side was that at the altar of

uniformity were sacrificed all the then existing DRMs which were by and large

140

enabling satisfactory outcomes. What was worse was that the system that replaced

them soon started showing its colors the formal procedures of the Courts of Law not

only took their own time but also provided umpteen loop-holes to the ingenious

lawyers to stretch that time even further if that suited their clients' interests. This had a

telling effect on the backlogs in court registries across the nation. To give an extreme

example, the Bombay High Court is currently taking up final hearing of Plaints filed

in the 80’s and 90's. An appeal from an Order/Judgment in these cases will take

roughly another 5 to 7 years from date of filing and a further Appeal to the Supreme

Court could take an additional 2 years. Arbitration too has seen its name sullied thanks

to the Ad Hoc version adopted by the lawyers drafting their clients' contracts. With no

institution to keep a check on their schedule, the Arbitrators become masters unto

themselves. Arbitral hearings, when held, are often as prolix as the court hearings and

one can't blame the Arbitrators for that, as they are usually retired judges and that's the

only way they know how to conduct hearings.

By and large, in the initial period, the scheduled hearings are held only to give

fresh dates of hearings on some or the other ground ranging from non-completion of

records to the ill-health, of someone connected to the proceedings or related to that

someone - and this continues till the parties' patience is found to be wearing thin.

Thereafter, substantive work is done at the arbitral hearings, but they go on for only

half a day i.e. 2 to 3 hours, with considerable time going in recaps and agenda settings

for future hearings. There are of course exceptions to this trend especially amongst

arbitrators who are newly retired judges, practicing lawyers or those coming from a

non-legal back-ground.

The parties and their lawyers, due to fear of antagonizing their Arbitrators,

refrain from attempting to rein them in. Some lawyers see this as a 'win-win' situation

between themselves and the Arbitrators as they get to charge for the whole day (plus

for the earlier days preparation) for the hour or so of arbitral hearing on a given day.

And if the hearing is at an out- of-town location, it's a paid holiday.

Going further down the line, when an Award is published, one must expect it to

be challenged in Court and it could take years for it to pass through that channel.

Introduction of the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not helped much

141

as the Supreme Court has rolled back the benefit of limited grounds of Appeal by

suggesting a broader interpretation of the term 'Public Policy', which is one of the few

grounds on which an Award can be sought to be challenged under this new Act.

New Law

Faced with these realities, coupled with the usual issue of inadequate

infrastructure, the parliament drastically amended the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(CFC) in the year 1999. One of the amendments was by way of introduction of a new

provision, Section 89, which gave the Courts the power to refer matters to one of the

ADR tracks listed therein: Arbitration, Conciliation, Judicial Settlement, Lok Adalat

and Mediation. A Lok Adalat (literally meaning People's Court) usually comprises of

3 eminent personalities retired judges, and senior members of the Bar, Administration

or society generally, who are appointed for a particular term and they attempt

conciliation and Judicial Settlement for dealing with disputes referred to them.

Section 89, coupled with Order X Rules I A, IB, I C of the CPC and allied

laws, affords the judiciary the opportunity to offer the parties an array of avenues to

resolve their issues in a timely and amicable manner and, in the process, reduce its

backlog.

Whereas there already exist some provisions for conduct of Arbitration, /

Conciliation and Lok Adalat in different Statutes, the need for a framework to regulate

the ADR tracks as a whole and Mediation in particular has been sought to be fulfilled

by the Supreme Court by providing the final version of the Mode Rules of ADR and

the Model Rules of Mediation, both framed by the Law. Commission of India, in its

Orders passed in the case of Salem Bar Association versus Union of India with a

direction that all High Courts should adopt these with such modifications as they may

consider necessary.

The new law, which came into effect in July 2002, was seen to be adopted with

differing enthusiasm across the nation. Whereas some States' High Courts had already

put in place a Panel of trained mediators who were being referred cases for mediation

on a regular basis, and had also, adopted the earlier version of the aforesaid Model

Rules (recommend in an earlier Order of the Supreme Court in the same case) with or

without modifications, other States' High Courts bade either only held 'Awareness

142

Campaigns' with little or no follow up action or were in the process of providing

mediation training and creating a Panel of trained mediators. These ADR

developments in the respective States depended largely on the inclination of their

respective High Court's Chief Justice towards ADR. This not only led to uneven

introduction of ADR services in the different States but also led to the implementation

of the ADR system gaining and losing momentum with the change of guard in each

High Court, which on an average one can expect to happen every other year. Now,

after the second Order of the Supreme Court in the Salem Bar's case, it is to be

presumed that all High Courts shall be implementing the ADR system by adopting the

aforesaid Model Rules in such form as they choose, providing mediator's training to

the legal fraternity and such others as they choose, setting up panels of trained

mediators and providing the list to the Judges, lawyers and parties for consideration

whilst appointing mediators and then, on successful completion of the mediation

process, taking the mediated agreements on record and disposing of the cases on the

basis thereof.

The Bombay High Court was fortunate to have, at the relevant time, a senior

judge who was thoroughly convinced about the benefit of ADR for the litigants 'as

well as the Court's backlog and successive Chief Justices gave him a relatively free

had and all support to implement his plans for a robust ADR system. We thus saw the

creation of the first Panel of trained Mediators in the year 2003 along with a Panel of

Arbitrators comprising of retired Judges with fees stipulated for each Panel. A new

post of Registrar (ADR) was created and, a Judicial Officer was appointed to man that

post. Separate ADR co-ordinators were appointed for the High Court and the City

civil & Sessions Court (the District court for Mumbai); An ADR course was

introduced for lawyers and Chartered Accountants in aegis with the Mumbai

University which has till date completed four courses. The Earlier versions of the

Model Rules were also adopted as soon as they became available. Awareness

campaigns and training workshops were conducted in several parts of the Sate (of

Maharashtra) and Panels of trained Mediators were set up in several lower courts and

some tribunals. A sizable piece of land was also earmarked for setting up a judicial

academy and a mediation Centre. And cases, at least outside the High Court, started

143

being referred to mediation on a regular basis. As for the High Court Itself, the system

is such that the Chief Justice cannot direct his Brother Judges to refer suitable matters

before them to some or the other ADR track, as he could with the lower judiciary.

Thus only a few High Court Judges choose to recommend ADR options in cases

before them. The insufficiency, of training for judges has left a majority of the

judiciary ignorant or unconvinced about the mechanisms and nuances of each ADR

track and the benefits of adopting ADR and Case Management systems in general and

Mediation in particular. Some even remain unconvinced about the competency of the

trained mediators, probably due to their limited initial experiences. It was probably

due to their limited initial experiences. It was probably due to one of the two

abovementioned reasons that a very Senior Judge, whilst heading a Bench, spent over

50 minutes urging Counsels appearing in a family dispute to sit with each other and

help their respective clients resolve their differences. Repeating several time, it is

better that the two of you say something rather that the two of us say something, he

even went to the extent of quoting dialogues from the celluloid world to buttress his

point, but not once did he utter the word 'mediation', even though the High Court's

Panel of Mediators was already in place for quite some time.

With the creation of the Maharashtra Judicial Academy & Indian Mediation

Centre and Training Institute at Bombay, which was inaugurated recently by the

President of India, the need for judicial training will be effectively met. Already, a

batch of over 40 newly appointed Judges for District Courts in several parts of the

Sate (of Maharashtra) received Judicial Training which included an ADR component.

The next step is to simultaneously start training the lawyers representing parties in

cases referred to mediation so that they can shift from their usual adversarial role and

learn to adopt a more collaborative approach. Even more important is the need to

empower the litigants by making them aware of the choices now made available to

them. For both these tasks the support of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations is

crucial as they can not only exert the required influence on the legal fraternity, but can

also assist the Judiciary in programs to educate the litigating public, the end users

whose empowerment would lay a crucial role in changing the legal mindset.

CONCLUSION Used effectively by having trained panels of mediators and training

144

also being imparted to Judges, Magistrates & other Judicial Officers, concerned court

staff and, more importantly, the litigation lawyers, along with the necessary set of

rules for their respective conduct - in tandem with a robust case management system,

these provisions hold great promise for the litigants virtually languishing for years in

the corridors of Indian Courts.