A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioners have challenged the award dated 17-11-1999 passed by the Lok Adalat in O. S. No. 189/98, produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition raises important questions of law which have a bearing on the powers/functions of the Lok Adalat to decide a dispute. What are the parameters of its statutory power in the matter of determining a dispute. Does its role limited to merely striving to bring about a compromise or can it go beyond that and decide the dispute even where one of the parties to the dispute is not agreeable for a compromise but is keen to fight it out on merits. What is the role of the State as a defendant in a declaratory suit? Is it a mere formal party or should it evince substantial interest in the matter in its capacity as the representative of the people in order to preclude any public injury that would result in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in his endeavour. What is the remedy available to the State when it is facing the wrong end of the stick as a result of an order passed by the Lok Adalat. Should the order be final or is it open to challenge under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. All these questions arise for my consideration in this case. These questions can be determined only against the background of facts as set out in the writ petition. Accordingly, I proceed to state the facts giving rise to this petition.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief which led to the filing of the present petition are as follows :the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. 189/98 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, (Jr. Dvn.), Jamkhandi for a decree of mandatory injunction declaring the plaintiff as belonging to Hindu Simpi Caste and not Hindu Lingayat. The plaintiff also filed an application under Sec. 80 (2), C. P. C. along with an affidavit praying for dispensing with the issue of the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. The Court took up the matter on 10-12-1998 to consider the application filed under Sec. 80 (2), C. P. C. The Court allowed the application and dispensed with the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. Notices were ordered to the defendants and the case was called again on 4-11-1999. On 4-11-1999 the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo praying that the matter be referred to Lok Adalat. Notices were ordered to the defendants returnable by 17-11-1999. On 17-11-1999 the Court proceeded to refer of the case under the Karnataka Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

( 4 ) ON 23-11-1999 the Lok Adalat took up the matter. After perusing the documents produced by the plaintiff the Lok Adalat decreed the suit despite remonstration by the Addl. Govt. Pleader that he had no authority to enter into any settlement in the matter and he requires the sanction of the State before he could agree for any settlement. Dismissing this objection as merely an administrative process and the plaintiff cannot be denied relief on that count, the Lok Adalat passed the award that is impugned herein.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned Govt. Pleader Mr. K. Shantharaj. The respondent is unrepresented and he has remained absent despite service of notice. The Court requested to Mr. D. N. Nanjunda Reddy learned Counsel, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Mr. D. N. Nanjunda Reddy made his submissions after going through the records of the case.

( 6 ) THE Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 ('the Act' for short) was promulgated to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker section of the society and to organise Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. Chapter VI of the Act exclusively deals with Lok Adalats.

( 7 ) SUB-SEC. (5) of Sec. 19 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute. The type of cases over which Lok Adalat can exercise jurisdiction is brought out in sub-sec.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document