IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17977 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (H.O.KOTTAKKAKOM). BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN,S.C. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. SHIBURAJ.B.S., AGED 36 YEARS, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, PANAYARAKUNNU, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 501. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17977/2011-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 32 DTD. 23/04/2011 OF THE BANK EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 08/01/2011 IN LOK ADALATH CASE NO. PLF 882/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17977 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 order of the Lok Adalath organised by the Neyyattinkara Taluk Legal Services Committee on the ground that the amount ordered to be paid is far less than even the One Time Settlement available to the 3rd respondent in respect of a loan taken by him from the petitioner- bank. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing Ext. P2.” 2. Statutorily, the parties to a lok adalath settlement are prohibited from challenging a settlement in the lok adalath. Of course, if the petitioner has a case that the settlement was obtained on the basis of fraud, perhaps this court may have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge. But the petitioner has no such allegation. The only contention is that the person who represented the bank before the Lok Adalath was inexperienced and because of the insistence of the members of the Lok Adalath, he has signed the settlement. That is no reason for interfering with a lok adalath settlement signed by the parties. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge against Ext. P2 award and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/