A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be referred to a Lok Adalat.

1. THE petitioner in this WP under Article 226 dated November 16, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief:

"a) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent authorities to send the dispute between petitioner and ICICI Bank Limited Respondent No. 1 to the Learned Lok Adalat at the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta forthwith."

2. THE petitioner took a home loan from ICICI Bank Limited, a private bank and as such not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Since he was in default on the loan, proceedings have been initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. THE authorised officer took measures under section 13(4) of the Act issuing a possession notice dated August 2011.

3. STATING his "financial hardships" the petitioner sent a lawyer's notice seeking time to repay the loan. Now he has filed this WP alleging that his case has not been considered fairly and reasonably, and asserting that this Court has jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Lok Adalat, organised for the High Court at Calcutta, for amicable settlement under section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

4. COUNSEL for the petitioner has strenuously argued that in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 the petitioner is entitled to file this WP seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to refer the disputes to a Lok Aualat for amicable settlement.

5. COUNSEL for the bank has submitted that there is absolutely no reason to say that anything concerning the loan and measures taken by the authorised officer is to be referred to a Lok Adalat or can be amicably settled before a Lok Adalat.

6. THE question is whether the petitioner is entitled to file the WP seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to refer the case to a Lok Adalat.

7. THE Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been enacted "to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of the economic or other disabilities, and to organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity."

8. THE expression "Lok Adalat" defined in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act means a Lok Adalat organised under Chapter VI of the Act. And Chapter VI of the Act contains sections 19-22 of the Act. While section 19 deals with organisation of Lok Adalats; sections 20, 21 and 22 deal with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, award of Lok Adalat and powers of Lok Adalat or permanent Lok Adalat respectively.

9. SECTION 19 provides that every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.

10. SUB-section (5) of section 19, being relevant for this case, is quoted below:

"(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of- (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: Provided that the lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law."

11. SUB-section (2) of section 20 to which counsel's attention was drawn is quoted below:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any ma