(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order/ decree dated 26.06.2015 passed by the District legal services authority, Chikmagalur, in p.l.c.no.480/2015 vide annexure-d, allow this writ petition with costs.)
Cav Order:
1. This petition by the petitioner namely K.G.Subbaiah (since deceased by his legal representatives) being aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2015, passed in PLC No.480/2015 by the District Legal Services Authority-Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as ''Authority'').
2. Brief facts of the case are:
(a) That respondent No.1 namely Smt.D.M.Sharadamma (since deceased by her legal representatives) had filed a pre-litigation petition on 18.06.2015 before the Authority in PLC No.480/2015, against the original petitioner and respondent No.2 herein alleging, that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,28,000/- from her and that despite her requests and demands, the amount was not repaid.
(b) That the Authority, after registration of said case had issued notices to the original petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein fixing the date of hearing as 25.06.2015, on which date service of notice was held sufficient and matter was ordered to be listed on 06.07.2015 for referring the same to the Lok Adalat.
(c) That on 26.06.2015, counsel for respondent No.1 herein had filed an application preponing the said matter to be taken up before the Lok Adalat on the very same day. As per the said request Authority, purportedly had referred the matter to the Lok Adalat before which certain Smt.Rupa K., Advocate had allegedly filed vakalath for the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein and had also filed a joint memo on their behalf, in terms of which petitioner and respondent No.2 herein had allegedly agreed to pay Rs.4,28,000/- within a period of one year starting from 01.08.2015. Acting upon the said joint memo the Authority had allowed the petition.
(d) It is alleged that the petitioner was unaware of the aforesaid proceedings till he received a notice in Ex.No.173/2016, which was filed by the original respondent No.1 herein seeking execution of the order passed by the Authority. It is only thereafter he learnt that original respondent No.1 herein had filed a petition in PLC No.480/2015 and some person had appeared before Lok Adalat impersonating himself as original petitioner and had signed all the papers.
(e) That the petitioner was working as Headmaster in Chikkamagaluru and was in the school the whole day and his signature did not match the signature found in the records of PLC No.480/2015 or in the vakalath which was allegedly filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said proceedings. That petitioner had even approached the local police by filing a complaint in this regard respondent No.1 as well as against respondent No.2
(f) Contending as above, petitioners are before this Court in this petition.
3. Sri. A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original petitioner reiterating the averments and grounds urged in the petition submitted;
(a) That original petitioner was not aware of the proceedings initiated by original respondent No.1 in PLC No.480/2015 and was also not aware of any joint memo filed on his behalf. He had not engaged any counsel by name Smt.Rupa K and that his signatures were forged on the joint memo as well as in the vakalath.
(b) That the notice purportedly issued to the original petitioner in PLC No.480/2015 was not served on him. The order sheet maintained by the Authority disclosed that the notice issued to the original petitioner in shown to have been served on his, ''boy''. That in the background of this aspect Authority could not have passed the impugned order especially when the notice was not personally served on the original petitioner.
(c) That though the matter which was listed 25.06.2015 was thereafter posted to 06.07.2015, upon an application filed by respondent No.1, the matter was proposed and referred to Lok Adalat. Thus, the entire turn of events indicate that a fraud has been perpetrated including forging the signature of the original petitioner resulting in the impugned order being passed. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of original respondent No.1, on the other hand submitted that there is nothing amiss in the procedure adopted and the filing of the joint memo or the matter being referred to Lok Adalat. The present petition is filed only to circumvent the consequences of the compromise order passed by the Lok Adalat. Hence, seeks for rejection of the petition.
5. Heard and perused the records.
Provisions of law governing reference of matter to Lokadalat:
6. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for brevity "the Act, 1987").
7. Section 19 of the Act, 1987 provides for organizing Lok Adalat, qualification of members of Lok Adalats and jurisdiction of Lok Adalats etc., which reads as under:
19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(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 organised 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, organising such Lok Adalat.
(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised 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 qualifications 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 organised:
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.
8. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the Lok Adalat, so organized will have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties in a dispute under the following two circumstances:
(a) Firstly, in respect of a dispute of any case pending before any Court within whose jurisdiction the Lok Adalat is organized [Section 19(5)(i)]; and
(b) Secondly, in respect of a dispute of any matter which falls within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before any Court [Section 19(5)(ii)].
9. Mode of taking cognizance by the Lok Adalat so organized is provided under Section 20 of the Act, 1987 which read as under:
20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.—(1) Where in 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 Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie 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 organising 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 needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer 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 case 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 between the parties and shall be guided by the principles 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 sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.
(6) Where no award 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 sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.
(7) Where the record of the case if 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).''
10. In the case of dispute which is pending before any Court, it is the Court before which matter is pending refers the same for Lok Adalat as contemplated under Section 19 clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19 read with clause (i) and (ii) of sub-section (i) of Section 20 of the Act, 1987.
11. If the dispute is in respect of a matter, which is not brought before the Court, which is called as ''pre-litigation matter'', provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 1987, would apply. Wherein, the Authority or Committee organizing Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 1987, may on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to such dispute refers the same as contemplated under clause (ii) of sub-Section (5) of Section 19 of the Act, 1987 to Lok Adalat for determination.
12. Relevant also to refer to the Regulations 10 and 12 of The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009, which reads as under:
'' 10. Reference of cases and matters.- (1) Lok Adalat shall get jurisdiction to deal with a case only when a court of competent jurisdiction orders the case to be referred in the manner prescribed in Section 20 of the Act or under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(1A) A pre-litigation matter may be referred to the Lok Adalat by the concerned Legal Services Institution on the request of any of the parties after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.
(2) A mechanical reference of pending cases to Lok Adalat shall be avoided and the referring court shall, prima facie satisfy itself that there are chances of settlement of the case through Lok Adalat and the case is appropriate to be referred to Lok Adalat:
Provided that matters relating to divorce and criminal cases which are not compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall not be referred to Lok Adalat.
(3) In a pending case where only one of the parties had made application to the court for referring the case to Lok Adalat, or where the court suomotu is satisfied that the case is appropriate to take cognizance by Lok Adalat, the case shall not be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(4) The need based continuous Lok Adalats may be constituted in order to facilitate regular reference and timely disposal of cases.''
12. Pre-Litigation matters.- (1) In a Pre-litigation matter it may be ensured that the court for which a Lok Adalat is organised has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter.
(2) Before referring a Pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat the Authority concerned or Committee, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable hearing to the parties concerned.
Provided that the version of each party, shall be obtained by the Authority concerned or, as the case may be, the Committee for placing it before the Lok Adalat,
(3) An award based on settlement between the parties can be challenged only on violation of procedure prescribed in section 20 of the Act by filing a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. Thus, aforesaid provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, 1987 as well as the aforesaid Regulations mandate that the pre-litigation matters can be referred to the Lok Adalat by the concerned Legal Services Authorities or Committee, only after giving notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the opposite party.
14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.V. Venkatesh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others reported in ILR 2002 Kar 3666, adverting to role of a Court in referring the matter to Lok Adalat, at paragraph Nos.4.1 to 4.4, has held as under:
4.1) Where all parties agree for referring the cases to Lok Adalat, the question of either the Court hearing the parties or the Court recording satisfaction that the cases is a fit one for reference to Lok Adalat does not arise. The Court will have to however record the agreement of all the parties to refer the case to Lok Adalat.
4.2) Where only one or only a few among several parties seek reference to Lok Adalat, then the Court will have to give a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard on the question whether the case should be referred to Lok Adalat. After such hearing, if the Court feels that it is a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat, it may do so even if the other parties oppose the reference, after recording its prima facie satisfaction that there are chances of settlement in the Lok Adalat.
4.3) Where neither party requests for reference to Lok Adalat, but the Court feels that it is a fit case to be referred to Lok Adalat, it may do so suo moto, after giving a hearing to the parties, if it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat.
4.4.) When the statute lay down that a case can be referred in either of the three circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 2(a) to 2(c) that the case cannot be referred unless all parties agree is liable to be rejected.
15. Thus, when a dispute is pending before a Court, it can be referred to Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties or on an application by any one of the parties and upon satisfaction of the Court, regarding possibility of settlement of the dispute. As regards dispute which is not pending before any Court, same could be referred to Lok Adalat for determination by the Authority or Committee organizing Lok Adalat, upon an application being made to it as provided under sub-Section(2) of Section 20 of the Act, 1987.
16. In all the aforesaid circumstances, unless the parties agree, no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat, except after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
17. Authority or Committee and Lok Adalats:
Also relevant to note that there is a difference between, Authority or Committee, namely, State Legal Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or High Court Legal Services Committee or Taluk Legal Services Committee as the case may be and the Lok Adalat.
18. Members of Legal Services Authority of National, State, District and Taluk are different and distinct from that of members of Lok Adalats. Their authority, powers and functions are also different and distinct.
19. Thus, Authority or Committee organizing Lok Adalat cannot assume the functions of Lok Adalat. Its obligation is only to refer the matter for Lok Adalat under the circumstances noted above. While Lok Adalat in vested with power to make award based on compromise the settlement arrived at between the parties.
20. It may also be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while adverting to the jurisdiction, power and functions of Lok Adalat, particularly with reference to the meaning of words, "award and determination" used in the context of Lok Adalat under Sections 19 to 22 of the Act, 1987, at paragraph No.8 has held as under:
'' 8. It is evident from the said provisions that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to “hear” parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by the principles of justice, equity and fair play. When the LSA Act refers to “determination” by the Lok Adalat and “award” by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The “award” of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.''
21. Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats:
Chapter VI A, consisting of Sections 22A to 22E of the Act, 1987 deal with Permanent Lok Adalat and its jurisdiction, powers and functions. Permanent Lok Adalats primarily deal with dispute in respect of public utility services as defined under Section 22A(b)(i) to (vi) of the Act 1987.
22. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Ajay Sinha and others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 454 as well as the case of Canara Bank Vs. G.S. Jayarama reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776 has held that Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 the Act, 1987, are distinct from the nature of power granted to the Permanent Lok Adalat, established under Section 22B of the Act, 1987. Thus, it is held that the Lok Adalat cannot perform any adjudicatory functions, in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 1987, whereas, Permanent Lok Adalats are vested with conciliatory as well as adjudicatory functions in respect of petty cases capable of being settled at the pre-litigation stage itself.
Instant case:
23. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is not clear from the records maintained by the Authority as to provisions under which the application to refer the dispute to Lok Adalat was filed by the original respondent No.1. However, the order sheet produced at Annexure-B indicate that the Authority after registering the dispute as pre-litigation case, appears to have taken cognizance of the dispute by itself without referring the same to the Lok Adalat. Even the order sheet maintained in the matter is by the Authority itself and not by the Lok Adalat.
24. There is no mention about any notices having been served on the original petitioner as mandatorily required under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, 1987 and Regulations 10 and 12 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009.
25. For the purpose of emphasizing the requirement of maintaining separate order sheets, either by the Court or by the Authority/Committee and Lok Adalat, it is appropriate also to refer to the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Akkubai Vs Shri.Venkatrao and others reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2051, wherein at paragraph No.11 it has held as under:
" 11. I really wonder, whether the Learned Judge who has entertained this matter was aware of the elementary aspects of judicial functioning and the Lok Adalath. A common order-sheet cannot be maintained by the Court as well as the Lok Adalath. A Court cannot be converted into a Lok Adalath. In the order-sheet maintained by the Court, a portion of the proceedings is referable to the Court proceedings and another portion refers to the proceedings of the Lok Adalath. The Conciliator has no place inside the Court. The very object of accepting this Lok Adalath as an alternative mode of resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not need adjudication. The matter which could be resolved by persuasion, negotiation and understanding should be taken out of adjudication process and should be resolved by means of Lok Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are disposed of expeditiously and the Courts will be saving the time of adjudicatory process, and they can utilize that time which is saved, in adjudicating the cases. If on the day the plaint is presented, the parties are also present before the Court, they are ready with the compromise petition and when they are filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, when they are admitting the terms of the compromise and execution of the terms and condition, then the Court before which it is presented, is the competent Court to record the compromise and dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. The question of referring the said dispute to the Lok Adalath would notarise. If it is referred, it is a farce. If this is accepted and encouraged, both the judicial system and this alternative dispute resolution mechanism gets a bad name and would be subjected to redicule in the eyes of public. All persons who are indulging in this process would be doing great injustice and dis-service to the judicial system. They are not conscious of their action and its repercussions and the image of the Judiciary, which would create in the mind of the public. That is not the object with which neither Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 is passed by the Parliament providing for the institution of Lok Adalath nor Section 89 was introduced by the Parliament amending CPC. The essence of these provisions is neither understood by the Learned Judge nor by the Learned Counsels who are appearing for the parties.
26. Thus, the Authority in the instant case could neither have taken the cognizance of the dispute which is purportedly referred to Lok Adalat under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 1987, nor could it have taken upon itself the task of settling the dispute acting itself as a Lok Adalat under Section 19 of the Act, 1987.
27. The procedure adopted by the Authority, is clearly contrary to the provisions of law and the Regulations noted hereinabove. That apart, serious allegations of impersonation and forging of signatures are made by the petitioner.
28. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 at Annexure-D passed in PLC No.480/2015 by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru, is unsustainable. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 26.06.2015 at Annexure-D passed in PLC No.480/2015 by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru, is hereby quashed.
(iii) Matter is remitted to the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru.
(iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective learned counsel, they shall appear before the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru, on 29.08.2026 without further notice.
(v) District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru after affording opportunity to the parties of being heard and after being satisfied if the matter is fit to be referred to Lok Adalat, only then refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for determination strictly in accordance with law.
