Union Of India And Others vs Banabihari Mishra And .... Opp. Parties
2026 Latest Caselaw 1271 Ori

Orissa High Court

Union Of India And Others vs Banabihari Mishra And .... Opp. Parties on 11 February, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                              W.P.(C) No.6238 of 2025
                                 Union of India and others        ....      Petitioners

                                                           Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty,
                                                                   Sr. Panel Counsel
                                                       -versus-

                                 Banabihari Mishra and            ....    Opp. Parties
                                 another
                                            CORAM:
                                            JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                                                       ORDER

11.02.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Order No.

04. 1. The matter was earlier heard on two occasions.

On 03.02.2026, the following order was passed:

"2. The petitioner Union of India challenges the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in PLA case No.10 of 2023 by the learned PLA, Khurda, Bhubaneswar.

3. The learned Senior Panel Counsel has adjournment to address whether the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the learned Lok Adalat have acted and followed the procedure laid down in State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh: AIR 2008 SC 1209 reiterated in Bhargavi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others: AIR 2017 SC 4428.

4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel are Digitally Signed also was asked during the hearing whether the Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC petitioner has stated on oath that they did not Date: 13-Feb-2026 14:13:14 agree for the settlement/conciliation and the order passed by the learned Lok Adalat; he also has adjournment to address on the same."

2. On 05.02.2026, after hearing the learned Senior Panel Counsel, the following order was passed:

"2. It is submitted that before the Lok Adalat the petitioners did not give consent for passing of the award. The learned Senior Panel Counsel relies on Bhargavi Constructions and another v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others: (2018) 13 SCC 480. Paragraph-24 is reproduced herein:

"24. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22-8- 2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing."

3. At paragraph-33 of Bhargavi Constructions (supra) the following has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court (SCC Online Web Edition Print).

"33. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the respondents

is concerned, it also has no merit. In our view, the decision rendered in State of Punjab [State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 669 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 524 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 535] is by the larger Bench (three Judge) and is, therefore, binding on us. No efforts were made and rightly to contend that the said decision needs reconsideration on the issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (see M. Nagaraj v.

Union of India [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] ). It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case."

4. At paragraph-12 of the decision rendered by three Hon'ble Judges in State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others: (2008) 2 SCC 660: (SCC Online Web Edition print): the following has been observed:

"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. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."

[Emphasis supplied]

3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel was heard again on the question of admission extensively.

He further refers to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta and others in Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal C. No.27806 of 2023 decided on 18.11.2025.

4. Notice be issued on the question of admission and maintainability of the petition along with this order.

It is submitted by learned Senior Panel Counsel that the Opp. Party No.2- The Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Khurda at Bhubaneswar has been made a party

inadvertently and notice need not be issued to the said Opp. Party.

Requisites for issuance of notice to the Opp. Party No.1 by Speed Post with registration and proof of delivery shall be filed within seven working days, fixing returnable date to 12.03.2026.

5. Awaiting SR, matter be listed in the week commencing 30.03.2026.

I.A. No.3463 of 2025 & I.A. No.2259 of 2026

6. The I.A. No.3463 of 2025 has been filed for stay of operation of the impugned Award dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Khurda at Bhubaneswar in PLA case No.10 of 2023.

Heard learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner.

7. Issue notice as above in both the applications.

Let one set of process fee as well as postal requisites be accepted along with the above writ petition.

8. In the interim, it is directed that the Award dated 29.08.2024 shall not be given effect to.

9. List in the week commencing 30.03.2026.

Liberty to mention.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Rajesh