Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Can a Lok Adalat make an award touching the rights of a minor? This is the short issue for decision in this case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the issue in hand and stature of the judgment being passed, notices to respondents are dispensed with

3. Vavachan and Karmely had three children, late Augustin, the first respondent Yesudas and the third respondent Lilly, James. The first petitioner is widow of late Augustin and the second petitioner, a minor aged 6 years, is their child. The second respondent is the wife of the first respondent.

4. Disputes arose during the lifetime of Karmely regarding an item of property. The petitioners, as heirs of Augustin, claiming share, in it, filed Ext. P4 pre-litigation petition, essentially invoking S.19(5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for short, hereinafter, the "Act".

5. By the time the matter reached the Legal Services Committee for consideration, Karmely died bereft of the fortune of enjoying the bliss of the amicable settlement of the disputes between her dear ones. It is stated that the parties arrived at a consensus to let respondents 1 and 2 have the building, provided the third respondent Lilly James is paid an amount of Rs,85,000/- and the petitioners, being the heirs of late Augustin, are paid an amount of Rs.85,000/ The parties made oral submissions before the Legal Services Committee regarding such understanding between the parties:

6. The Legal Services Committee, however, came to the conclusion that because the second petitioner is a minor, it may not be appropriate for the Legal Services Committee to finalise the matter and accordingly relegated the petitioners to move appropriate petition before the Court of Wards. This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by such procedure.

7. Art.39A of the Constitution provides that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way; to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The provision for legal aid under Article 39A may, at times, become glossed by the fundamental right to life under Article 21 and it could be treated as part of the right created under Article 21 in suitable cases. The Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes (CILAS) was appointed to monitor and implement legal aid programme's on a uniform basis. Lok Adalats were being constituted at various places in the country for settlement of disputes between the parties expeditiously and with lesser costs. In view of the fact that the institutions of Lok Adalats, with the passage of time, become very popular, it became necessary to provide statutory backing to those institutions and awards given by the Lok Adalats. It was felt that such a Statutory support would, not only reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular courts, but would also take justice to the door-steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive. This led to the Act.

8. Under S.19(5)(ii) of the Act, a Lok Adalat shall have the jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any matter ,which is not brought before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised, but is falling within the jurisdiction thereof. S.20(2) provides that on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub s.(5) of S.19, by the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat, the same can be referred to the Lok Adalat, for determination. This is notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. When such a reference is made, the Lok Adalat, in terms of S.20(3), shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arr