Smt. Sumitra Devi And 2 Others vs M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1172 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved on :- 11.03.2022
 
Delivered on :-  12.04.2022
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3600 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Sumitra Devi And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pande, ,Dileep Chandra Mathur,Prem Shankar Kushwaha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kamlesh Kumar Mishra,A.K.Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

1. Heard Sri Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting-aside the order dated 14.05.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others. Further prayer has been made to set-aside the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Review Petition No. 04 of 2016 in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others.

3. The brief facts pleaded in the petition are that the defendants/petitioners entered into a registered agreement to sale dated 09.04.2008 with the plaintiffs/respondents on certain terms and conditions. The defendants/petitioners cancelled the agreement to sale by means of notice dated 13.10.2011. On 02.11.2011, the plaintiffs/respondents instituted an Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011 praying for a decree of specific performance of contract of sale dated 09.04.2008 against the defendants/petitioners. An application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendants/petitioners before the trial court praying for rejection of the plaint of the original suit aforesaid.

4. It is alleged in the petition that the plaintiffs/respondents under undue pressure entered into compromise with the defendants/petitioners for specific performance of contract of sale dated 09.04.2008 and the same was filed and allegedly verified by the court on 20.02.2016. On 23.02.2016, the trial court framed 7 issues for adjudication in the suit and decided issue no. 3 on the same date. The date of 28.03.2016 was fixed for deciding issue no. 4 which was decided and the case was directed to be fixed for 14.05.2016 for disposal of compromise before Lok Adalat. None of the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat to verify the compromise or accept the terms of compromise but on 14.05.2016, the award was passed. Against the aforesaid award dated 14.05.2016 which was passed by the court in the capacity of Lok Adalat, the petitioners filed a review petition. The plaintiffs/respondents filed their objection to the review petition on 30.07.2016. The review petition was dismissed by the order dated 13.11.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has submitted that the trial court passed the award dated 14.05.2016 assuming the powers of Lok Adalat which is against the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He has submitted that as per Section 19, atleast two members are required to decide the compromise or settlement between the parties in Lok Adalat but in the present case, it has not been complied and the case has been decided by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar. He has further submitted that under Section 20 of the aforesaid act, one of the parties is required to make an application to the court to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and if the court is satisfied that there is chance of settlement between the parties, sends the matter to Lok Adalat. In the present case, the trial court without recording any satisfaction, decided the case acting as Lok Adalat. As per Section 20 of the Act aforesaid, the cases can only be referred to Lok Adalat after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the present case, none of the parties made any application. As per Regulation 13 (6) of the National Legal Services Authority Regulation, 2009, Lok Adalat shall not determine reference at its own motion but only on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties before it. As per Regulation 17 aforesaid, the award passed by Lok Adalat has to be verified by all the parties and the Lok Adalat is required to mention about the refund of court fees. If the counsels are not present, the members of Lok Adalat are required to identify the parties and before affixing their photographs are required to verify their signatures. It has been submitted that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Estate Officer Vs. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired), 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 597 in support of his arguments.

6. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P T Thomas Vs. Thomas Job, 2005 (10) JT 304, whereby the Apex Court has held that award of Lok Adalat is final and no appeal or writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies against the same.

7. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that before proceeding further with this case, a look at the relevant sections of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and relevant regulations of The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009, would be relevant for deciding present dispute and they are being quoted hereinbelow :-

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 :-

19. Organization 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 organise 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 Adalats.

(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 preseribed 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 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.

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 (i) (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 refeèrred to in clause (ti) 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 reterence 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 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).

The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 :-

5. Notice to parties concerned :- The Member-Secretary of Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Authority or, as the case may be, the Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee convening and organizing the Lok Adalat shall inform every party concerned whose case is referred to the Adalat, well in time so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare himself for the Lok Adalat:

Provided that such notice may be dispensed with, if the Court while referring the case to the Lok Adalat fixes or informs the date and time of the Lok Adalat in the presence of the parties, or their advocates:

Provided further that if a party is not willing to refer their case to Lok Adalat, the case may be considered on its merits by the Court concerned.

6. Composition of Lok Adalat:- (a) At State Authority Level - The Member Secretary organising the Lok Adalat shall constitute benches of the Lok Adalats, each bench comprising of a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court or a serving or retired judicial officer and any one or two of the following:-

(i) a member of the legal profession;

(ii) a social worker of repute who is engaged in the upliftment of the weaker sections of the people, including the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, women, children, rural and urban labour and interested in the implementation of legal services schenmes or programmes.

(iii) a professional from the field related to the subject matter of the Lok Adalat; and

(iv) a mediator or a professional or a serving or retired senior executive.

(b) At High Court Level:- The Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee organizing the Lok Adalat shall constitute benches of the Lok Adalats, each bench comprising of a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court or a serving or retired Judicial Officer and any one or 'two of the following: a member of the legal profession; (ii) a social worker belonging to the category as mentioned in item (ii) of sub-para (a) above; (iii) a professional from the field related to the subject matter of the Lok Adalat; and (iv) a mediator or a professional or a serving or retired senior executive.

(c) At District Level:- The Secretary of the District Authority organizing the Lok Adalats shall constitute benches of the Lok Adalats, each bench comprising of a sitting or retired judicial officer and any one or two of the following- (i) a member of the legal profession; (ii) a social worker belonging to the category as mentioned in item (ii) of sub-para (a) above or a person engaged in para-legal activities of the area, preferably a Woman; (iii) a professional from the field related to the subject matter of the Lok Adalat; and (iv) a mediator or a professional or a serving or retired senior executive.

(d) At Taluk Level:- The Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee organizing the Lok Adalat shall constitute benches of the Lok Adalat, each bench comprising of a sitting or retired judicial officer and any one or two of the following:-

(i) a member of the legal profession;

(ii) a social worker belonging to the category as mentioned in item(ii) of sub-para (a) above or a person engaged in para-legal activities of the area, preferably a Woman,

(iii) a professional from the field related to the subject matter of the Lok Adalat; and

(iv) a mediator or a professional or a serving or retired senior executive.

7. Allotment of cases to Lok Adalats:- (1) The Member Secretary, the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee, the District Authority or Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee, as the case may be, shall assign specific cases to each bench of the Lok Adalat.

(2) The Member Secretary, the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the District Authority or Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee, as the case may be, may prepare a cause list for each bench of the Lok Adalat and intimate the same to all Concerned at least two days before the date of holding of the Lok Adalat. Every bench of the Lok Adalat shall make sincere efforts to bring about a conciliated settlement in every case put before it without bringing about any kind of coercion, threat, undue influence, allurement or misrepresentation.

8. Holding of Lok Adalats- Lok Adalats may be organised at such time and place and on such days, including holidays as the State Authority, High Court Legal Services Committee, District Authority, or the Taluk Legal Services Committee, as the casc may be, organising the Lok Adalat deems appropriate.

9. Jurisdiction of Lok Adalats.- Lok Adalats shall have the power only to help the parties to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute and, while so doing, it shall not issue any direction or order in respect of such dispute between the parties.

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 suo motu 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 Constitütion of India.

13. Procedure in Lok Adalats.- (1) Members of Lok Adalat have the role of statutory conciliators only and have no judicial role and they, mutatis mutandis, may follow the procedure laid down in sections 67 to 76 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).

(2) Members of Lok Adalat shall not pressurise or coerce any of the parties, to compromise or settle cases or matters, either directly or indirectly.

(3) In a Lok Adalat the members shall discuss the subject matter with the parties for arriving at a just settlement or compromise and such members of the Lok Adalat shall assist the parties in an independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach amicable settlement of their dispute:

Provided that if it found necessary the assistance of an independent person or a trained mediator may also be availed of the by Lok Adalat.

(4) Members of Lok Adalat shall be guided by principles of natural justice, equity, fairplay, objectivity, giving consideration to, among other things, the rights and obligations of the parties, custom and usages and the circumstances surrounding the dispute.

(5) The Lok Adalat may conduct the proceedings in such a manner as it considers appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the case, wishes of the parties including any request by a party to the Lok Adalat to hear oral statements, and the need for a speedy settlement of the dispute.

(6) The Lok Adalat shall not determine a reference, at its own instance, but shall determine only on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement arrived at:

Provided that no Lok Adalat has the power to hear the parties to adjudicate their dispute as a regular court:

Provided further that the aware of the Lok Adalat is neither a verdict nor an opinion arrived at by any decision making process.

16. Communication between Lok Adalat and parties. - (1) A Lok Adalat may invite the parties to nmeet it or may communicate with it oraly or in writing and it may meet or communicate with the parties together or with each of them separately. The factual information concerning the dispute received from a party may be disclosed to the other party in order that the other party may have the opportunity to present any explanation:

Provided that the Lok Adalat shall not disclose any information, if one of the party desires to keep it confidential.

(2) Each party may on his own initiative or at the invitation of the Lok Adalat, submit suggestions for settlement of the dispute.

(3) When it appears to the Lok Adalat that there exists elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the terms of a possible settlement may be formulated by the Lok Adalat and given to the parties for their observations and modifications, if any, suggested by the parties can be taken into consideration and terms of a possible settlement nmay be re- formulated by the Lok Adalat.

(4) If the parties reach a compromise or settlement of the dispute, the Lok Adalat may draw up or assist the parties in drawing up the compromise or settlement.

17. Award - (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat.

(2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (see a specimen at Appendix-1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation- 20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.

(3) In cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees remitted.

(4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement.

(5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures: that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-Sided; and (a) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of (b) any threat, coercion or undue influence.

(6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc.

(7) Lok Adalat shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent.

(8) The original award shall form part of the judicial records (in pre-litigation matter, the original award may be kept with the Legal Services Authority or committee, concerned) and a copy of the award shall be given to each of the parties duly certifying them to be true by the officer designated by the Member-Secretary or Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or, as the case may be- the Chairman of Taluk Legal Services Committees free of cost and the official seal of the Authority concerned or Committee shall be affixed on all awards.

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid sections of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act of 1987') and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as ''Regulations of 2009'), it is clear that as per Section 19 of the Act of 1987, every Lok Adalat is to consist of two members as stated in Section 19 (2) (a) (b) of the Act. As per Section 19 (5), a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute. As per Section 20 (1), a case can be referred to the Lok Adalat only if one of the parties to the dispute makes an application to the Court, for referring the same or if the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, the court can refer the same to the Lok Adalat. However, the proviso to Section 20 (1) is very clear that no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat without the consent of the parties or on the direction of the Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The certified copy of the order sheet of the Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011 which is on record shows that on 20.02.2016, the disputed compromise was filed before the trial court. On 23.02.2016, the trial court framed 7 issues for adjudication in the suit and decided only issue no. 3 on the same date. The case was directed to be listed on 28.03.2016. On 28.03.2016, issue no. 4, regarding insufficiency of court fees was decided by the trial court and one line was added in the order directing the case to be listed on 14.05.2016 before the Lok Adalat for disposal of the compromise between the parties. On 14.05.2016, by a nine line order, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar, recorded the finding that the parties are present. The case is decided in terms of the compromise paper no. 61 Ka.1/1, 61 Ka.1/1/2, 61 Ka.1/2 and the compromise was directed to be made part of the decree. The first line of the order records that the record of the case has been put up before the Lok Adalat. This Court does not finds signature of either of the parties or their counsel on the order sheet of the Court dated 28.03.2016 and 14.05.2016 which shows that the orders were passed behind the back of the parties and their counsels.

9. Regulation 5 of Regulations of 2009 clearly provides that the Member Secretary of the Lok Adalat shall inform every party concerned, whose case is referred to Lok Adalat, well in time, so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare himself for the Lok Adalat. The only explanation is proviso 1 to Regulation 5 which provides that notice may be dispensed with, if the Court while referring the case to Lok Adalat fixes or informs the date and time of the Lok Adalat in the presence of the parties, or their advocates. In the present case as discussed above, neither the parties nor their counsels were present before the Lok Adalat on 14.05.2016 when the trial court passed the order of referring the case to Lok Adalat.

10. Regulation 6 of Regulations of 2009 reiterates that the Benches of Lok Adalat would comprise of two members as mentioned in Section 19 (2) of the Act of 1987. In the present case, only the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar, has signed the award dated 14.05.2016 which cannot be considered to be in accordance with Section 19 (2) and Regulation 6 (c) of Regulations of 2009.

11. Regulation 7 of Regulations of 2009 provides that the Member Secretary shall assign specific cases to each bench of the Lok Adalat. In the present case, the order of assignment of the case to the same bench which referred the matter to the Lok Adalat has not been explained by the counsel for the respondents.

12. Regulation 9 of Regulations of 2009 provides that Lok Adalats shall have the power only to help the parties to arrive at a compromise or settlement and as per Section 10 of Regulations of 2009, a mechanical reference of pending cases to Lok Adalat is to 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. No such compliance is evident from the material on record and the order sheet of the court below.

13. Regulation 10 (3) provides that the Court will not refer any case to Lok Adalat except after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. In this case, no such opportunity was granted as discussed above.

14. In the present case, it is clear that on 28.03.2016, the issue no. 3 framed in the suit was decided and the case was directed to be listed before Lok Adalat on 14.05.2016. Therefore, there is blatant violation of Regulation 9, Regulation 10(2) and (3) of Regulations of 2009 by the trial court in referring the dispute to the Lok Adalat. As per Regulation 12 (3) of Regulations of 2009, there is clear provision that an award based on settlement between the parties can be challenged only on violation of procedure prescribed in Section 20 of the Act of 1987 by filing a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Court in view of Regulation 12 (3) of Regulations of 2009. The argument to the contrary raised by the learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the judgment of the Apex court in the case of P.T. Thomas (supra), is of no avail since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case did not considered the regulations laid down in the Regulations of 2009 and particularly Regulation 12 (3).

15. Regulation 13 (3) of Regulations of 2009 provides that the members of the Lok Adalat shall discuss the subject matter with the parties for arriving at a just settlement or compromise and they shall assist the parties in an independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach amicable settlement of their dispute. In the present case, no settlement or compromise was arrived at before the Lok Adalat. The compromise dated 20.02.2020 was filed earlier and the court/Lok Adalat simply directed that the suit stands decided in terms of the aforesaid compromise.

16. No compromise with the assistance of the members of the Lok Adalat was arrived at all before the Lok Adalat.

17. Regulation 13 (6) clearly bars the Lok Adalat from determining a reference at its own instance and it has been directed to determine the same only on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement arrived at.

18. Regulation 17 of Regulations of 2009 provides that drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties under the guidance and assistance of the Lok Adalat. As per sub-clause (2) to Regulation 17 of Regulations of 2009, only when both the parties signed or affixed their thumb impression and the members of Lok Adalat countersigned it, it becomes an award as per specimen at Appendix- I of the regulations, which is quoted below :-

APPENDIX-I

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

HELD AT ................

 
       [Organized by...............Authority/..........Committee under Section 19, of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Central Act)]
 
       Petitioner/Plaintiff/Complainant 				:
 
       Defendant/Respondent 						:
 
       No. of proceedings of the ...................... Court/Authority/Committee 
 
       Present :
 
       Names of Judicial Officer/
 
       Retired Judicial Officer 					:
 
       Name of Members :
 

 

 
       AWARD
 
       The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromise/settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement :
 
       ........................................................................
 
       ........................................................................
 
       ........................................................................
 
       ......................................................
 
       The parties are informed that the court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded.
 
       Petitioner/Plaintiff/Complainant
 
       Defendant/Respondent
 
       Judicial Officer 			Member 		     Member
 
       Date :
 
                   (Seal of the Authority/Committee)
 
       
 

19. The sub-clause (3) of Regulation 17 of Regulations of 2009 provides that in cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees remitted. Sub-clause (4) further provides that where the parties are not accompanied or represented by their counsels, the members of Lok Adalat shall also verify and identify the parties.

20. In the present case, it is clear that no award has been drawn, as per Appendix- I. No order of refund of court fees has been passed nor the signatures of the parties has been verified by the members of Lok Adalat before recording the compromise or settlement between the parties. The members of the Lok Adalat were required to ensure that the parties affixed their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at as per sub-clause (5) of Regulation 17 of Regulations of 2009 and the settlement is not unreasonable, illegal nor one-sided and the parties have entered into settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. The Members of Lok Adalat have been cautioned under Regulation 17 (6) to ensure that Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc.

21. From the above consideration, it is clear that the impugned award was passed in gross violation of the provisions of the Act of 1987 and the Regulations of 2009 by a single member in the purported capacity of Lok Adalat. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hence maintainable in view of Regulation 12 (3) of Regulations of 2009 since there is gross violation of procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Act of 1987 and also the regulations framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, duly notified vide notification F.No.L/28/09/NALSA.

22. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 14.05.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, is hereby quashed along with order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the same court on the Review Petition No. 04 of 2016 in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others.

23. The petition is accordingly, allowed.

24. The record of the suit shall be placed before the competent court for decision in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The record shall be placed before the court concerned on 26.04.2022. Both the parties are represented before this Court through their counsels and hence, they will appear before the trial court personally or through their counsels on the next date fixed.

Order Date :- 12.04.2022

KS