Per V.V.S. Rao, J.

Lok Adalat, Nandyal, Kurnool District, passed order/award dated 07.2.2004 in the matter of O.s.No.1 of 2004 in terms of the compromise and settlement among respondents 1, 2 and 4, who at the relevant time, are partners of third respondent firm. The petitioners who are not parties either to the suit or to the award passed by Lok Adalat filed instant writ petition after lapse of about five years challenging the same. This Court initially granted interim orders staying execution proceedings and when respondents 1 and 2 moved application to vacate interim orders, with the consent of rival parties, the matter is heard and is being disposed of finally.

Petitioners' case

2. The case of petitioners as alleged in the affidavit accompanying writ petition is as follows. Third respondent firm was constituted on 29.6.1997 with respondents 1, 2 and 4 as its partners. The said partnership was reconstituted with effect from 01.4.2003 when respondents 1 and 2 withdrew from the firm and petitioners were taken as partners with fourth respondent as Managing Partner. The firm obtained lease of a vacant site situated at street No.21, on a monthly rent of RS.6,760/- for the purpose of stockyard. The said site belongs to first respondent and his brothers. On 03.5.2008 respondents 1 and 2 produced proceedings in E.P.No.1 of. 2008 of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, seeking delivery of possession of said site. On enquiries, petitioners came to know that Lok Adalat passed award on 07.2.2004, that without authority fourth respondent entered into compromise agreeing to vacate the stockyard by 31.3.2008 and Lok Adalat award is for dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts. Petitioners then filed an application being E.A.No.25 of 2008 under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for setting aside the award of Lok Adalat in 0.5. No.1 of 2004. The Court of Additional District Judge dismissed the application on 30.4.2009 holding that such an application is not maintainable and that petitioners have to challenge the award by filing writ petition. Therefore the writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the award dated 07.2.2004 passed by the Lok Adalat, Nandyal, as unjustified, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same.

Respondents' case

3. The case of respondents 1 and 2 is as follows. When the award passed by Legal Services Committee under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) is final and binding, the same cannot be challenged by third parties by way of writ petition. The petitioners 1 to 3 and fourth respondent are living under one roof and they are acting in concert to deny the benefit of award to respondents 1 and 2. Petitioners suppressed material facts and made misleading statements and therefore they are not entitled for discretionary relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

4. First petitioner is step mother of fourth respondent and second petitioner is his wife and third petitioner is grandfather of fourth respondent. Second respondent is wife of first respondent and first petitioner is also sister of first respondent. Thus petitioners and fourth respondent are closely related. third respondent was constituted on 29.6.1997 with respondents t 2 and 4 as partners for the purpose of doing business in iron and hardware. The first respondent and his two brothers, Venkata Seshaiah and Bala Subrahmanyam, are owners of stockyard land, which was leased out to third respondent. When fourth respondent failed to show the accounts properly, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.s.No.1 of 2004 for dissolution of firm. Fourth respondent then agreed for amicable settlement. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, Nandyal, on 07.2.2004. Respondents 1 and 2 agreeing to retire from the firm signed Form V under Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1951, and on the same day, the compromise decre