Oral:

The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 13.08.2016, passed by the Lok Adalat.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the petition. The sole contention urged on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has never authorized his counsel to withdraw the objection, hence, the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat is contended to be non est in the eyes of law.

3. Since before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner was being represented by a counsel, therefore, a specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner, as to whether after passing of the impugned order by the Lok Adalat, any action had been initiated against the counsel who was representing the petitioner before the Lok Adalat. The answer was an emphatic 'No'.

4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be interfered with on the ground as is being urged by the petitioner. The relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, the purpose for which the Lok Adalats have been created and the grounds for challenging the same, have been dealt with in detail by the Apex Court, in State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Others, reported in 2008(2) SCC 660. Relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

                          "7. … … ...Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ("the LSA Act", for short) provides for organization of the Lok Adalats. Section 19(5)(i) of the LSA Act provides 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 case pending before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. Section 20 relates to e cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalats. Sub-section (1) refers to the Lok Adalats taking cognizance of cases referred to by courts and sub-section (2) refers to the Lok Adalats taking cognizance of matters at pre- litigation stage. The relevant portions of other sub-sections of Section 20, relating to cases referred by courts, are extracted below:

                          "20. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under t sub- section (1) ... the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case... 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, 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.

                          (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)."

                          (emphasis supplied)

                          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 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 d 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." … … …

                          12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court, If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds."

5. In the case at hand, no valid, legal, permissible ground for interference in the impugned order of the Lok Adalat has been made out, hence the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

6. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.