K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The writ petitioner is the appellant, who is aggrieved by the refusal of the learned Single Judge to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Bank, against the order of the Lok Adalat before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’), passed under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of the Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDB Act’). The petitioner was also aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated against him de hors the settlement arrived at, in the Lok Adalat. The order of the Lok Adalat is produced as Annexure-7 in the writ petition and the order of the DRT interfering with the same is produced as Annexure-13.

2. The learned Single Judge found that initially a settlement of Rs.27 lakhs was arrived at and despite the petitioner having not complied with that, the DRT had in Miscellaneous Applications filed before it, granted further time to the petitioner; which was not permissible. The time granted by the DRT also was without noticing the recovery proceedings already initiated, based on the earlier orders of the DRT, which was passed, on the writ petitioner not complying with the earlier order of the Lok Adalat. The last of such orders in a Miscellaneous Application, which granted further time to the petitioner was pending before the appellate authority. The certificate of recovery already issued by the DRT was still valid. The order of the Lok Adalat impugned in the writ petition was clearly a case of misrepresentation, wherein the Bank’s dues were recorded as Rs.96,134/- when the total outstanding amount, as per the recovery certificate stood at Rs.52,07,624/- as on 30.11.2014.

3. The decisions referred to by the DRT were also looked into, to find that since the impugned award was passed on misrepresentation of facts; which ground did not exist in the various decisions cited by the writ petitioner, the DRT was perfectly within its jurisdiction to interfere with the award. It was held that the decision in Indian Banks vs. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and Others; (2010) 8 SCC 129 applied squarely to the facts of the present case. Though, a settlement has been entered into by an Officer of the Bank; the Bank being the custodian of public money, the settlement having been clearly demonstrated to be on misrepresentation of facts, the Bank was perfectly justified in approaching the DRT against the order of the Lok Adalat, was the finding.

4. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Bhargavi Constructions and Another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others; (2018) 13 SCC 480. Following a three Judge Bench judgment, in State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Others; (2008) 2 SCC 660, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically laid down that the challenge to an order of Lok Adalat can only be raised before the High Court under Article 226/227. The impugned order is totally without jurisdiction, is the argument raised.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, however, asserted that when fraud and misrepresentation of facts are alleged, it vitiates the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat. The Officer of the respondent- Bank for some reason; probably not being apprised of the facts fully, agreed for the settlement, for a paltry sum when already recovery certificate for humongous amounts was pending realization against the writ petitioner-borrower. Reliance was placed on R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarsamy and Others; (2021) 9 SCC 114 to contend that the compromise decree if alleged to be void or voidable, a party to the said consent decree, for challenging the same, has to approach the same Court, which recorded the compromise. The DRT had recorded the compromise in the Lok Adalat and it was perfectly in order that the Bank had approached the DRT against the compromise.

6. At the outset, we have to observe that the conduct of the appellant, the borrower, is suspect, for reason of the earlier Lok Adalat