INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Estate
Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 898, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the powers of the Lok Adalats to decide the
cases before it on merits.
CONTEXT
Briefly speaking, a Writ Petition was dismissed on
merits by a Lok Adalat held by a High Court. Against such dismissal, the matter
traversed to the Supreme Court. Basically, dismissal on merits means dismissal
of a case by taking into account the substantive considerations, grounds and
claims made in that case.
QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED
The question of law involved in this case was whether
it is open for a Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of a case and to dismiss
the same on merits, in absence of any settlement arrived at between the
parties.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
In order to understand the matter, let us peruse the
relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
S. 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,
provides for organization of Lok Adalats by various courts and authorities. The
Chapeau of S. 19 (5) states that: -
“A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to
determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a
dispute…”
Similarly, S. 20 (1) provides that only those
matters where at least one of the parties to a case agree “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”, then the Court
shall refer such case to the Lok Adalat. Thus, it obligatory upon the Court to
refer a matter to the Lok Adalat, if the parties so desire.
Further, S. 20 (3) states that where any case is
referred to the Lok Adalat, “the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of
the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties”
and S. 20 (5) states 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… for disposal in accordance with law.”
Thus, the mandate of the Lok Adalats is restricted
to arriving at a settlement or compromise and when no compromise or settlement
could be reached, the Lok Adalat is to return the case back to the Court whence
it came from. In order to understand this conundrum in a better manner, let us
go through the pertinent observations by the Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that the logic that
the Lok Adalat is justified to look into the merits of a matter since such
matter is placed before the Lok Adalat with consent of parties is misplaced and
misguided, as “the consent to place the matter before the Lok Adalat was
to arrive at a settlement or a compromise between the parties and not for
placing the matter before the Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits.”
Secondly, the Court cited the case of State
of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj, (2006) 8 SCC 364, wherein it was held that “if
no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed
by the Lok Adalat.”
Thirdly, the Court emphasized that the
jurisdiction of a Lok Adalat is to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a
settlement between the parties to a dispute and “in any case, the Lok
Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on merits once it is
found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties.”
And lastly, the Court opined that “once
there is no compromise or settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat….,
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.”
HELD BY THE COURT
Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of the
matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order
passed by the Lok Adalat and remanded the matter to the High Court for its just
and proper disposal.
That was all about the case. So, what are my
concluding remarks.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The interpretative exercise carried on by the
Supreme Court makes it amply clear that the Lok Adalats have no power whatsoever
to go into the merits of a matter. The purpose of setting up Lok Adalats was to
settle those disputes that have been pending before the Court for years but with
the consent of the parties. Such settlement or compromise can never take place
by forcing the parties to accept the Orders passed by the Lok Adalats. If the
parties require a matter to be heard on merits, they can anyways ask the
respective courts to take up the matter for hearing and adjudicate upon the
same.
No comments:
Post a Comment