(per V.V.S.Rao, J.)

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 30.08.2008 passed by III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad-cum-Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat and an order of even date passed by II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts in E.P.No.15 of 2003 and for a consequential direction to first respondent, namely, the Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority (hereafter called, LSA) to place I.A.S.R.No.6184 of 2006 before Lok Adalat, LSA, Hyderabad, for proper adjudication as directed by this Court in its order, dated 21.06.2007 in W.P.No.7214 of 2007.

2. The factual matrix is asfollows. Respondents 2 to 5 herein filed O.S.No.417 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, against the petitioners, their grandmother and mother. It is for a decree of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.12.1998 in respect of the premises bearing Municipal No.21-7-822, admeasuring 210 square yards situated at Ghansi Bazar. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity). An Award was passed on 28.03.2001 in terms of the compromise among the parties to the proceedings. The decree holders then filed E.P. There was an unsuccessful attempt by J.Drs., to stall the execution. In 2005, respondents 8 and 9 herein filed an application before the trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree which was also dismissed. At that stage, petitioners who are J.Dr. Nos.4 and 3 filed an interlocutory application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, to set aside the compromise decree (Lok Adalat award dated 28.03.2001), alleging fraud. The same was rejected on 10.10.2006. A month thereafter, the petitioners filed another application under Section 22C(1) of the Act before the Lok Adalat to set aside Lok Adalat award.

3. The Secretary, Lok Adalat rejected the application (registered as Inward No.306/2006) on 02.02.2007. The petitioners then filed W.P.No.7214 of 2007 to quash the Secretary’s order. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 21.06.2007 setting aside Secretary’s order dated 02.02.2007 and directed the Secretary “to place the petition filed by the writ petitioners before the Lok Adalat, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, to set aside the award in O.S.No.417 of 1999, dated 28.03.2001”. The petitioners alleged that the Division Bench directed the Secretary to place I.A.S.R.No.6184 of 2006 before Lok Adalat and that on enquiry, they came to know that two separate orders are passed, one by II Additional Chief Judge and the other by III Additional Chief Judge by proceedings on 30.08.2008 dismissing the petition to set aside. They contend that while doing so, they did not give notice. They further contend that the Secretary’s non-compliance with the direction in W.P.No.7214 of 2007 is audacious and contemptuous.

4. The second respondent (decree holder No.1) filed detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. The important allegations and averments to the extent necessary are as follows. Respondents 6 to 10 are not necessary parties to the present writ petition and they are impleaded with an oblique motive. Kaushalya Devi, Pushpa Devi and petitioners herein executed agreement of sale on 15.12.1998 agreeing to sell the property for sale consideration of Rs.19,50,000/- and received Rs.19,00,000/-. The balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. When they did not cooperate, the answering respondent and others filed O.S.No.417 of 1999 for specific performance of agreement of sale. In the written statement filed therein, the execution of suit agreement was admitted but contested the matter. When the trial was being conducted, the vendors proposed comprom