Article Section | |||||||||||
LOK ADALAT CANNOT DECIDE A CASE ON MERITS |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
LOK ADALAT CANNOT DECIDE A CASE ON MERITS |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Lok Adalat Lok Adalat is one of the alternative dispute redressal mechanisms, it is a forum where disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably. Lok Adalats have been given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘Act’ for short). There is no court fee payable when a matter is filed in a Lok Adalat. If a matter pending in the court of law is referred to the Lok Adalat and is settled subsequently, the court fee originally paid in the court on the complaints/petition is also refunded back to the parties. Organization of Lok Adalat Section 19(1) of the Act provides that 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. Section 19(5) of the Act provide that 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-
any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. The Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Types of Lok Adalats The following are the various types of Lok Adalats-
Reference of case to Lok Adalat by Court Section 20(1) of the Act provides that the Court may refer a case to Lok Adalat if-
No matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. Pre litigation The State Legal Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority as the case may be on receipt of an application from any one of the parties at a pre-litigation stage may refer such matter to the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement of the dispute for which notice would then be issued to the other party. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalat Section 20 (3) of the Act provides that where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat or where a reference has been made to it, the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. Disposal of application Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. 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 for disposal in accordance with law. 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 Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court. Where the record of the case if sent to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference. Order in merit The Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. The Lok Adalat shall not decide the case on merits. No jurisdiction is vested on Lok Adalat to decide the case on merits. In ‘ESTATE OFFICER VERSUS COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) [2021 (10) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT] the appellant in the present appeal filed a writ petition before the High Court in WP 8074 of 2011. The High Court allotted this case to Lok Adalat. The case was listed before the Lok Adalat on 30.11.2013. The Lok Adalat entered into the merits of the case and dismissed the writ petition. Therefore the appellant filed a restoration application to restore the main petition. The appellant contended before the High Court that the order passed by the Lok Adalat is beyond the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat. The High Court dismissed the application. Against the order of the High Court, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended the following before the Supreme Court-
The respondent contended the following before the Supreme Court-
The Supreme Court heard the contentions of both the parties to the appeal. The main question framed by the Supreme Court for its decision as to whether in the Lok Adalat held by the High Court, was it open to the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writ petition to dismiss the same on merits, in the absence of any settlement arrived at between the parties. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Act, 1987-
The Supreme Court observed that according to section 19(5) of the Act a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-
A fair reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act 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. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat, Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 30.11.2013 in Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside by the Supreme Court. The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 is ordered to be restored to the file of the High Court for its decision on merits and in accordance with law. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.
By: Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - October 9, 2021
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||