Fayaz Bukhari
Srinagar, Mar 26: The High Court today said that Lok Adalats have conciliatory role and when they are not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, they can’t hear cases or pass orders as Courts do.
“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. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement. In their conciliatory role, the Lok Adalats are guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play”, read the judgment.
Justice Hanjura today, in a significant judgment, held the orders passed by the Chairman Tehsil Legal Services Committee (CJM) in Lok Adalat without giving opportunity to Petitioner-Chief Engineer R&B and others who have challenged the award given in a Lok Adalat is against the tenets of law.
It is by the medium of the writ petition, the petitioner-CE through his counsel Q R Shamas along with others have assailed the orders dated 29-03-2017 & 25-05-2017 passed by the Chairman Tehsil Legal Services Committee, Handwara, on the grounds that although the parties did not arrive at any settlement, yet the Chairman Legal Services Authority, without any jurisdiction, determined the issue by assuming unto himself the powers of a Civil Court.
Counsel appearing on behalf of CE stated that in terms of the section 18(4) of the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act 1997, the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is limited to the extent of seeking a settlement or compromise between the parties and not to determine the issue on evidence or merit.
“The Chairman of the Lok Adalat has not recorded any order to state that the matter requires to be referred to the Lok Adalat and no opportunity, as envisaged under Section 19 of the Act, has been given to the petitioners”, Justice Hanjura said.
Court said the Trial judge has imposed his views in the order without there being any settlement or compromise, which is against the tenets of law and also recorded the order in such a fashion and manner as if he had to pass a final judgment in a case.
About the order passed on March 29, Court said this first order has been framed in such a way as he (CJM) has taken refuge under the documents that were produced before him by the respondent-Claimant without recording any settlement or compromise.
Underscoring the importance of Lok Adalats, Justice Hanjura said these Adalats determine a reference on the basis of the ‘settlement and compromise between the parties’ and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the settlement and the compromise.
In the instant, Court said, no such reference has been made for placing the matter before the Lok Adalat nor has any award been passed and the orders impugned have been passed after hearing the parties for the adjudication of the case and the Act does not contemplate or require any adjudicatory judicial determination but non adjudicatory determination based on compromise and settlement arrived by the parties.
The application for the settlement of the case at pre-litigation stage here in this petition was filed by the respondents before the Chairman Legal Services Authority. The Chairman Legal Services Authority in terms of the provisions of the law was required to seek the consent of both the parties for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat and the matter could only be referred to the Lok Adalat thereafter.
However, no attempt has been made in that direction. The Chairman, Court said, exercised his jurisdiction in the absence of any legal reference in terms of Section 19 of the Act, which he cannot make a reference on his own when the parties do not extend any request to the effect.
Court said, it is only when an Award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement/compromise which the parties acknowledge and in token thereof they put their signatures to it that it can be executed.
“In view of the preceding analysis, this petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The orders impugned in this petition are set aside. The respondents’ claim shall revive for its consideration in accordance with the law. The trial Court record shall be returned forthwith”, Court concluded.
It has also been stated that the award of the Lok Adalat is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and law is well settled that if the case does not involve settlement or compromise, the Lok Adalat cannot dispose of the same.
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM),Handwara as Chairman Tehsil Legal Service Authority on May 25 last year which has been assailed along with order of March 29 last year wherein department (petitioners) was directed to release an amount of Rs 33 lakhs by or before 15 days and when the said order was not complied by the non-applicant, two show cause notices were issued against them but of no avail. Thereafter Court directed the Treasury Officer Handwara to seize the Major Head Account of the Executive Engineer R&B Division, till further orders.
A plea has been raised before the High Court by CE and its subordinate officers as to whether these orders passed by the CJM, Handwara (Chairman Tehsil Legal Service Authority) are inconsonance with the law and the rules governing the subject.
Referring to the citation of Apex Court, Justice Hanjura said, It is evident from the said provisions that 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.
Court said, the ‘award’ of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.
“Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of Judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators. The endeavor and effort of the Lok Adalats should be to guide and persuade the parties, with reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to compromise and settle the dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of their respective claims”, Justice Hanjura observed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel