J.S. Narang, J. - The question, which has arisen in the present application filed by way of objection against the order/award of the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is as to whether an objection petition against the order of Lok Adalat is entertainable by this Court by invoking the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The Lok Adalats are constituted in pursuant to the provisions contained under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Constitution, Scope and Jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat has been prescribed under Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act. It shall be apposite to notice the aforesaid provisions of the Act, which reads as under :
[Text of Sections 19-22 omitted Ed.]
3. The perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that primarily the Lok Adalats are expected to make an effort to bring around a compromise or settlement between the parties and that for achievement of the said objective, the Lok Adalat shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. The Lok Adalats are entitled to pass an award which shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or as the case may be and the said award shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and that no appeal has been provided against the said award. The award passed by the Lok Adalat would also be enforceable by virtue of the powers of Lok Adalat provided under Section 22 of the Act, and that while exercising such powers, Lok Adalat has been bestowed the powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it and that such proceedings are to be deemed to be judicial proceedings. In spite of these powers, the Lok Adalat cannot acquire the jurisdiction of a Court, resultantly, the Lok Adalats cannot assume the role of a regular Court except for recording a Compromise or Settlement.
4. Somewhat similar questions had arisen before a Division Bench of this Court and it has been held in Re : Sham Lal Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, 2002(1) PLR 188, that the, Lok Adalat, cannot assume the role of the regular Court and decide cases de hors compromise or Settlement. Thus the power and the jurisdiction has not been conferred upon the Lok Adalat to decide the cases on merits but only the `Compromise or Settlement' can be recorded keeping in mind the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
5. In another case, in re : Kamal Mehta v. General Manager, Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation and another, FAO No. 798 of 1999 decided on 7.11.2001, wherein the Corporation filed objections that the award of the Lok Adalat be set aside and the matter be returned to the High Court for adjudication. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of the Act, and the objections filed against the award made by the Lok Adalat, has come to the conclusion that the procedure for entertaining objections against the award of the Lok Adalat is unknown to the proceedings envisaged under the Act. It has also been held that such an award if it does not spell out a Compromise as Settlement, would clearly violate the principle of the finality of an award of a Lok Adalat as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act. Resultantly, cannot be treated like a decree, it would amount to transgression of the powers of the Court. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under :
"It will be clear from the above discussion the Lok Adalats have been conceptualised as agencies wherein matters can be amicably compromised, settled by mutual agreement. Theses words have been repeatedly used in the statute, and if such an agreement cannot be reached, the Lok Adalat must divert itself of the controversy and must itself refer or advise the parties to approach a Court. It is true that the respondent-corporation has been left with the liberty to file objections but this procedure is unknown to proceedings under the Act, and clearly violates the principle of the finality of an award of a Lok Adalat envisaged under Section 21. This is true a clear transgression on the powers of the appellate Court."
6. It may be noticed that the award of the Lok Adalat is to be taken as final and binding between the parties to the dispute and that no appeal has been provided against the same to any Court. The question still remains as to what remedy shall be available to a person if assumingly the Lok Adalat transgresses the powers of the Court or the authority where upon such powers have been conferred. Is it that the person who is not satisfied with the award as the same is not tainted with Compromise of Settlement, has no remedy ?
7. Admittedly, the objections cannot be entertained under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, if at all, the award needs to be challenged for having been passed beyond the powers conferred upon the Lok Adalat, the power of Superintendence of the High Court as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India might be invoked. It has been categorically provided under Sub-section 3 of Section 22 of the Act, that all proceedings before the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings and that every Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and that an award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. Thus, every High Court shall have the power of superintendence over the Lok Adalat and therefore the High Court may entertain appropriate petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the award which has been made by the Lok Adalat allegedly not tainted with `Compromise or Settlement.'
In view of the above, the objections filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order/award of the Lok Adalat are not be entertainable. As such dismissed.
However, the applicant may avail the relief as per the remedy available under law. Dismissal of the application by this Court shall not be taken as expression on merits of the objections.
Petition dismissed.
Comments