Once there is no compromise and/or a settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat, the matter has to be returned to the concerned Court: Supreme Court.

IN THE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6223 OF 2021 …Appellant(s Colonel H.V. Mankotia…Respondent(s JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH J Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No. 80711 by which in a Lok Adalat held on 30.11.2013 the members of the Lok Adalat has entered into the merits of the writ petition and has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant on merits the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. That the appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011. The matter was listed on 30.11.2013 before the Lok Adalat. By the impugned order the members of the Lok Adalat held by the High Court entered into the merits of the writ petition and dismissed the same on merits which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 2.1 That thereafter the appellant filed the restoration application before the High Court to restore the main writ petition submitting that the order passed in the Lok Adalat is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and therefore the same is not legal in the eyes of law. However the said application came to be dismissed by the High Court and hence the Shri Vikramjit Banerjee learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered the case on merits and dismissed the same on merits which is wholly impermissible in view of the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987Section 20(3) and Section 20(5) of the Act 1987 in support of his submission that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case and decide the matter on merits in case the settlement is not arrived at. It is submitted therefore that the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat Madhya Pradesh High Court is wholly without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj8 SCC 364 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while opposing the present appeal has submitted that the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that therefore once the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with the consent entire matter would be at large before the Lok Adalat and therefore having found no substance in the petition the members of the Lok Adalat have rightly dismissed the writ petition which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in the Lok Adalat held by the High Court was it open for the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writ petition and to dismiss the same on merits in absence of any settlement arrived at between the parties 6. While answering the aforesaid question the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 which would have been a bearing on the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat are required to be referred to which read as under: “19. Organization of Lok Adalats 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 clauseof sub sectionfor Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice 4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clauseof sub sectionfor Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub sectionshall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court 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 : i) 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 Where in any case referred to in clause of sub section of Section 19(a) the parties thereof agree or i) 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 clauseof clauseor clauseby 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 referred to in clause of sub sectionof 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 or where a reference has been made to it under sub section 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 a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice equity fair play and other legal to arrive at 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 reference has been received under sub section 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 that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court 7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub sectionto the court such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub sectionof Section 19 a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before orany matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. As per sub sectionof Section 20 where in any case referred to in clause i) of sub sectionof Section 19 (a) the parties thereof agree orone 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 orthe 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. It further provides that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub clause of clause or clause by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 6.2 As per sub sectionof Section 20 where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub sectionor where a reference is made to it under sub section the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. Sub sectionof Section 20 further provides that 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 reference has been received under sub sectionfor disposal in accordance with law Thus a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and once the aforesaid settlement compromise fails and no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law and in any case the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj and after considering Section 20 of the Act 1987 it is observed and held in paragraph 7 as under: “7. The specific language used in sub section of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucial terms in sub sectionsof Section 20 are “compromise” and “settlement” The former expression means settlement of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Termes de la Ley “compromise is a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy”. As per Bouvier it is “an agreement between two or more persons who to avoid a law suit amicably settle their differences on such terms as they can agree upon”. The word “compromise” implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. 1 All ER 135 :1 WLR 1548 Ch D)] ). A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. “Settlement” is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore the disposal of Civil Writ Petition No. 9400 filed by the respondent is In view of the above the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that once the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with consent thereafter the entire matter is at large before the Lok Adalat and therefore the Lok Adalat is justified in disposing the matter on merits has no substance and the same is required to be rejected outright. The consent to place the matter before the Lok Adalat was to arrive at a settlement and or a compromise between the parties and not for placing the matter before the Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits. Once there is no compromise and or a settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat as provided in sub sectionof Section 20 the matter has to be returned to the Court from where the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits by the concerned court. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 30.11.2013 in Writ Petition No.80711 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the Writ Petition No.80711 on merits and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition No.80711 is ordered to be restored to the file of the High Court for its decision on merits and in accordance with law. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of [M.R. SHAH NEW DELHI OCTOBER 07 2021 ….J [A.S. BOPANNA

Summary: The Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the bench lead by Justice M.R Shah in the case of Estate Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired) (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6223 OF 2021). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011. The matter was listed on 30.11.2013 before the Lok Adalat. By the impugned order, the members of the Lok Adalat held by the High Court entered into the merits of the writ petition and dismissed the same on merits, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted by relying on the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj (2006) 8 SCC 364 that the impugned order has been passed in the Lok Adalat, Madhya Pradesh High Court and it has considered the case on merits and dismissed the same on merits, which is wholly impermissible in view of the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Shri Banerjee, has heavily relied upon Section 19(5), Section 20(3) and Section 20(5) of the Act, 1987 in support of his submission that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while opposing the present appeal has submitted that the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, entire matter would be at large before the Lok Adalat and having found no substance in the petition, the members of the Lok Adalat have rightly dismissed the writ petition. The question which was posed for consideration of this Court is it open for the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writ petition and to dismiss the same on merits, in absence of any settlement arrived at between the parties? After a fair reading of Article 19 and 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and considering the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj, the Hon’ble Court held that “The submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that once the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with consent, thereafter the entire matter is at large before the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the Lok Adalat is justified in disposing the matter on merits has no substance and the same is required to be rejected outright. The impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat, Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 30.11.2013 in Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the Writ Petition No.8074 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law.”