Summary
The Court set aside a regular Lok Adalat’s dismissal of a writ petition on merits without a settlement. Under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, its role was to facilitate compromise or settlement; if that failed, it had to return the pending case to the referring court. Consent to reference did not confer authority to adjudicate the merits. The writ petition was restored to the High Court for decision according to law.
Issues
- Whether a regular Lok Adalat could dismiss a referred writ petition on merits when the parties had not settled.
- Whether consent to placing the matter before the Lok Adalat authorised adjudication without compromise.
Provisions considered
- Sections 19(5) and 20(1), (3), (5) and (7), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987The statutory settlement function did not authorise merits adjudication. On failure of settlement the referred pending case had to return to the court, to proceed from the pre-reference stage. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- The regular Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction under the provisions considered was to arrive at a compromise or settlement. Without agreement, it had no jurisdiction to decide the referred dispute on merits and had to return the record for disposal by the court in accordance with law. (¶¶ 6, 6.2, 7, 8)
- The appellant’s consent to reference was consent to an attempt at settlement, not consent to adjudication by the Lok Adalat. It could not support dismissal of the writ petition on merits without a compromise. (¶ 9)
- The impugned dismissal was quashed, the writ petition restored to the High Court’s file and the matter remanded for its merits decision. The underlying dispute was not determined by the Supreme Court. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; Lok Adalat order set aside and writ petition restored to the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. No costs; pending applications disposed of.