IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20451 of 2008 Between: K. Shankar Babu S/o. Narayana R/o. H.No. 17-50, S.B. Colony, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairmana-Cum-Junior Civil Judge's Court Lok-Adalath Bench, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Secretary (Senior Civil Judge) District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar. 3 V. Venkat Reddy S/o. R/o. Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 Dyapa Varalaxmamma W/o. Sukumar Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District, Presently R/o. Flat NO. 202, H.No. 11-13- 130, Satya Apartments, Margadarsi Colony, R.K. Puram, Kothapet, Hyderabad. 5 Dyapa Sukumar S/o. Narayana Reddy Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District, Presently R/o. Flat NO. 202, H.No. 11-13- 130, Satya Apartments, Margadarsi Colony, R.K. Puram, Kothapet, Hyderabad. 6 D. Krishnaiah S/o. Narayana R/o. Plot no. 20, C/o. Amrutarao, Hasthinapuram, Indraprasha Colony, Ranga Reddy District. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dt. 4-12-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent in Pre- Litigation Case No. 31 of 2006 as illegal, arbitrary whimsical, violative of Article 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Award dt. 15-3- 2003 passed by the 1st respondent in O.S.No. 76 of 1997 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.HARENDER PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20451 of 2008 ORDER: (per Ghulam Mohammed,J) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the second respondent in Pre-Litigation Case No.31 of 2006, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the Award dated 15.03.2003 passed by the first respondent in O.S.No.76 of 1997. 2. The Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar, passed the following docket order on 04.12.2007: “Both parties absent. No representation. As can be seen from the material averments and the dispute in question between the parties, this authority cannot pass orders on merits. The petitioner has to seek his remedy before appropriate forum. If the petitioner required legal aid, it will be provided to him as per rules. Accordingly, this Pre-Litigation case is closed.” 3. The respondents 4 and 5 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy against the petitioner and respondent No.6 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. They also filed interlocutory application in I.A. No.198 of 1997 for interim injunction and the same was dismissed on 23.10.1997. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred before the Lok Adalat Bench, Junior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and both parties were present with their respective counsel before the Lok Adalat on 15.3.2003. The Lok Adalat, after recording the terms of compromise entered into between the parties, has passed the Award dated 15.03.2003. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was not present before the Lok Adalat on 15.03.2003 and had not affixed his signature on compromise and the third respondent in collusion with the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 cheated him and obtained Award from the first respondent. After coming to know about the same, he filed a complaint in Pre-Litigation case No.31 of 2006 before the second respondent and the same was closed on 04.12.2007 advising him to seek remedy before appropriate forum. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not affixed his signature on the compromise since he was not present before the Lok Adalat on 15.03.2003 and he was on official duty on that day and that his signature was obtained on blank papers and it was used in compromise. 6. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Full Bench in State of Punjab and another Vs.Jalour Singh and others[1], wherein it was held as under:. “ 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.” 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that both parties were present before the Lok Adalath and had put their signatures in the presence of their respective counsel on the compromise. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances case and also having regard to the decision of the Apex Court referred above, it is clear that Lok Adalat is a conciliatory body and it has to record only the settlement and not to adjudicate the issues involved in the case. Since these are all disputed questions of fact, we are not inclined to adjudicate the civil dispute under writ jurisdiction and the writ petition is liable to dismissed. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the writ petitioner to approach competent civil court for appropriate remedy challenging the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 11.02.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 660