KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
John Michael Cunha, J.
Raghavendra Rao – Petitioner
versus
K. Srikantha Rao – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.1028 of 2015 c/w Criminal Petition Nos.1029 to 1032 of 2015
Decided on 1.7.2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement.

Headnote:

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 21 – Award of Lok Adalat – National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulation, 2009 – Regulation 6, 13 and 17 – Composition of Lok Adalat, Procedure in Lok Adalat and Drawing up of the Award – Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial function and their functions relate purely to conciliation – Only the award passed by Lok Adalat is enforceable under law and not the order passed by Lok Adalat – Petitioners were accused in cheque dishonour case and during pendency of proceedings, parties were referred to Lok Adalat for resolution of dispute – Both parties submitted joint memo before Lok Adalat duly signed by their advocates – Lok Adalat passed orders convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and sentenced to pay certain amount in each complaint to complainant failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each case – Petition challenging the order passed by Lok Adalat – Since Lok Adalat failed to pass any award, order impugned could not be construed as award and was liable to be quashed – Complaints restored to be decided in accordance with law.

Held: A reading of the above order sheet clearly indicates that much before the parties were referred to Lok Adalath, joint memo was submitted by the parties before the Magistrate reporting settlement. When the matter was already settled, one fails to understand as to what made the learned magistrate to refer the parties to Lok Adalath. Such practice has been deprecated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Be that as it may, even the proceedings before the Lok Adalath appear to have been conducted in gross violation of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations 2009’ for brevity)

The order sheet extracted above reveals that the parties did not enter into compromise before the Lok Adalath. On the other hand, the joint memo filed by them before the Magistrate has been made into an order of the Lok Adalath. This order is signed only by the judicial member indicating that the Bench did not consist the quorum prescribed in Regulation 6 of the Regulations 2009 referred to above. More importantly, no award appears to have been passed by the Lok Adalath. Instead, the order sheet reveals that after passing an order as extracted above, the file was once again placed before the learned Magistrate and the matter was posted for payment by 20.5.2014. This order also is passed by the learned Magistrate on the same day indicating that all the proceedings have taken place in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and not before the Lok Adalath.

In K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon - vs - C.D. Shaji reported in (2012) 2 SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that “by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalath based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by Civil Court”. From the above proposition, it follows that once the Lok Adalath passes an award in terms of Regulation 17 of the Regulations 2009, the same is executable as a decree of a Civil Court and consequently, the learned Magistrate become functus officio to decide the case after the award passed by the Lok Adalath or to enforce the terms of the award. Since the Lok Adalath has failed to pass any award in terms of Regulation 17 of the Regulations 2009, the order dated 7.4.2014 passed by the Judicial Member of the Lok Adalt cannot be construed as “award” within the meaning of Regulation 17 of the Regulations 2009.

The impugned proceedings have been conducted by the Lok Adalath and by the learned Magistrate in utter disregard to the provisions of The Legal Services Act 1987 and The National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. Consequently, the order passed by the Lok Adalath dated 7.4.2014 and the consequent proceedings conducted by the learned Magistrate in C.C.Nos.9418/2011, 9416/2011, 9414/2011, 9415/2011 and 9417/2011 on the file of the XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru, are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The order dated 7.4.2014 passed by the Lok Adalath in C.C.Nos.9418/2011, 9416/2011, 9414/2011, 9415/2011 and 9417/2011 and all consequent proceedings conducted by the XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in the above proceedings are quashed. – – – – (Paras 7, 9, 13 and 14)

Result: Petition allowed.