The award of a Lok Adalat is final and binding unless challenged on clearly established grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation, as per the Legal Services Authorities Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. Pertinent that though notices have been duly served upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as is apparent from the Office Note dated 30.12.2019, there has been no representation on behalf of the aforesaid two respondents.

3. The pleadings having been completed, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of Admission with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

4. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the award dated 13.02.2016, passed by the National Lok Adalat, conducted by the District Legal Services Authority, Nagaon, in C.R. Case No.1161/2015, which was pending in the Court of Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hojai, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the Judicial Magistrate Court).

5. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2004, the petitioner No.1/accused person had borrowed money from the respondent No.4, and in connection with the aforesaid loan, the petitioners/accused persons had issued certain cheques, which, upon being dishonoured, a complaint case was filed, being C.R. Case No.1161/2015, by the respondent No.3/complainant against the petitioners/accused persons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 142 of the said Act (as amended up-to-date), before the Judicial Magistrate Court. In the said complaint case, on 13.02.2016, when the case record was put up before the National Lok Adalat, of which prior notices were sent to both the parties, including the petitioners as well as the respondent No.3/complainant, and upon parties appearing before the National Lok Adalat on the scheduled date, and in terms of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the National Lok Adalat, by award dated 13.02.2016 disposed of the case in terms of such settlement arrived at between the parties.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioners/accused persons that though the petitioners/accused persons were reluctant to appear before the National Lok Adalat on 13.02.2016, however, due to the threat given by the respondent No.4, the petitioners/accused persons had to appear before the National Lok Adalat and, upon being misrepresented, signed the compromise deed. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused persons, submits that the petitioners/accused persons have been coerced to sign the settlement compromise deed before the National Lok Adalat, and therefore, the order of the National Lok Adalat impugned in this writ proceeding is illegal and void ab initio. He further submits that the procedure contained in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “LSA Act”) has not been followed, for which the impugned order of the National Lok Adalat warrants interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Per contra, Mr. K. M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the impugned award of the National Lok Adalat has been passed on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived at between both the parties. He further submits