Impart Training To Judicial Officers On Conducting Lok Adalats: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court

The Court set aside an award passed by the National Lok Adalat, holding that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case if a compromise/settlement is not reached between parties. The Bench pointed out that Section 12 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulation, 2009 (Regulation) provided that in a pre-litigation matter, it must be ensured that the Court for which a Lok Adalat was organised had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter.

A Single Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul remarked, “Lok Adalat is meant for conciliated settlement of disputes outside Courts and it is also called as People’s Court. Lok Adalat is aiming at to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any dispute or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. Lok Adalat can compromise and settle even criminal cases, which are compoundable under the relevant rules.”

Government Advocate Jehangir A Dar represented the Petitioners.

Brief Facts

The Respondent filed a pre-litigation application alleging that his house was damaged due to traffic diversion via a link road. The Magistrate issued a notice to the Petitioners, who denied liability, asserting that the house was at a reasonable distance from the road and unlikely to have suffered any damage. Despite this, the Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the matter on its merits, leading to the Petitioners challenging the Order before the High Court.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the impugned order did not specify, show or suggest settlement/compromise between parties, meaning that it has been passed on merits of the case by the Magistrate.

“Section 13, to which reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for petitioners, provides that members of Lok Adalat have the role of statutory conciliators only and have no judicial role. Subsection (2) of Section 13 envisages that members of Lok Adalat shall not pressurize or coerce any of the parties, to compromise or settle cases or matter, either directly or indirectly,” the Bench remarked.

The Bench took note of the impugned order and stated, “When impugned Award/order is looked into, it does not show or reflect that above provisions have been looked into muchless complied with in letter and spirit by CJM while passing order impugned.”

The Court held that the impugned Order was passed “carelessly and in derogation of provisions of the Regulations.” The Bench reiterated the decision of the Supreme Court in Estate officer v. Colonel H.V.Mankota (Retired) [2021] wherein it was held that “Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to enter into merits of the case and decide the matter on merits if compromise/settlement is not arrived at between parties.”

“In the case in hand, impugned order/award has been passed by CJM on merits of the case in disrespect of the provisions of National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulation 2009, and law laid down by the Supreme Court, which defeats the very purpose of Lok Adalat and reflects carelessness by the court below. Hence interference is warranted,” the Bench stated.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Needless to say that, in order to avert the situation as has arisen in the instant case, where a Judicial Officer, holding the Lok Adalat, fails to comply with the Regulations of 2009 and/or any other laws governing the holding/conducting of Lok Adalats, and passes wrong orders as has been done in the present case, the Judicial Academy is required to conduct such programmes where Judicial Officers are imparted the training about holding and conducting of the Lok Adalats and making them aware of about the laws applicable/prevalent.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: Executive Engineer & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohideen Tantray (CM(M) 11/2020)

Click here to read/download the Order