P. Sathasivam, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal raises an important question as to the interpretation of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short ‘the Act’). The question posed for consideration is that when a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 referred to by the Magistrate Court to Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and an award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus executable?

3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 33013 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.

4. Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein filed a complaint being c.c. No. 1216 of 2007 before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court No.1, Ernakulam against the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the N.I. Act’). The Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Ernakulam District Legal Service Authority for trying the case for settlement between the parties in the Lok Adalat.

(b) On 08.05.2009, both parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and the matter was settled and an award was passed on the same day. As per the award, out of Rs. 6,000/-, the respondent herein paid Rs.500/- on the same day and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,500/- in five equal instalments of Rs.1,100/- per month on or before the 10th day of every month starting from June, 2009 and, in case of default, the appellant herein can recover the balance amount due from the respondent in lump sum.

(c) As the respondent did not pay any of the instalments as per the settlement, the appellant filed execution petition being E.P. No ..... of 2009 in c.c. No. 1216 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam for seeking the execution of the award. On 23.09.2009, the Principal Munsiff Judge, Ernakulam dismissed the petition holding that the award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference from the Magistrate Court cannot be construed as a “decree” executable by the civil court.

(d) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed writ petition being Writ Petition

(C) No. 33013 of 2009 before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court, vide order dated 24.11.2009, dismissed the writ petition.

(e) Against the said order, the appellant filed the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

5. The respondent, though duly served by this Court, has not chosen to contest the matter either by appearing in person or through counsel. Heard Mr. Prashanth P., learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Girl, learned senior counsel, who, on our request, assisted this Court as amicus curiae.

6. In order to find out the answer to the, question raised, it is useful to refer the Statement of Objects and Reasons and certain provisions of the Act applicable to the question posed before us.

“Statement of objects and Reasons.-Article 39-A of the Constitution provides that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the 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.

2. With the object of providing free legal aid, Government had, by Resolution dated the 26th September, 1980 appointed the “Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes” (CILAS) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) to monitor and implement legal aid programmes on a uniform basis in all the States and Union territories. CILAS evolved a model scheme for legal aid programme applicable throughout the country by which several legal aid and advice boards have been set up in the States and Union territories. CILAS i