2021 (10) TMI 377 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - order passed in the Lok Adalat as regards the merits of the case and dismissing the same without sending back to High Court - settlement not arrived at, between the parties - whether in the Lok Adalat held by the High Court, was it open for the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writ petition and to dismiss the same on merits, in absence of any settlement arrived at between the parties? - HELD THAT - A fair reading of various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and once the aforesaid settlement / compromise fails and no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law and in any case, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on merits once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that once the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with consent, thereafter the entire matter is at large before the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the Lok Adalat is justified in disposing the matter on merits has no substance and the same is required to be rejected outright - The consent to place the matter before the Lok Adalat was to arrive at a settlement and or a compromise between the parties and not for placing the matter before the Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits - Once there is no compromise and/or a settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat, as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 20, the matter has to be returned to the Court from where the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits by the concerned court. The impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside - matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the petition on merits and in accordance with law - petition restored.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat to enter into merits of a writ petition and dismiss it on merits without a settlement.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh where the Lok Adalat dismissed the writ petition on merits without a settlement. The appellant argued that this action was beyond the Lok Adalat's jurisdiction as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The appellant relied on specific sections of the Act to support the argument that Lok Adalat's role is limited to arriving at a compromise or settlement between parties and not deciding on merits in the absence of a settlement. The appellant cited the State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj case to emphasize the importance of compromise and settlement in Lok Adalat proceedings.

The respondent contended that since the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with consent, the Lok Adalat had the authority to dismiss the writ petition on merits. However, the appellant argued that consent was given for settlement purposes, not for the Lok Adalat to decide on merits without a compromise. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Lok Adalat had the right to delve into the merits of the case and dismiss it without a settlement.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, emphasizing that Lok Adalat's jurisdiction is limited to facilitating compromises or settlements. If no settlement is reached, the case must be returned to the court for further proceedings. Referring to the State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj case, the Court reiterated that Lok Adalat's role is to promote compromise and settlement, not to decide on merits without a settlement. Thus, the Lok Adalat's decision to dismiss the writ petition on merits was deemed unsustainable and was quashed.

Conclusively, the Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the High Court for a decision on the writ petition's merits in accordance with the law. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.