Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 1053
(SUPREME COURT)
Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
State of Punjab and others v. Ganpat Raj
Civil Appeal No. 4089 of 2006; Decided on 12.9.2006. *
H.S. Munjral and Arun K. Sinha for appellants; Brig. M.L. Khattar, Debasis Misra, Sunil Varma and Balraj Mallick for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Ss. 20 (3), (5) and 19 (1) -- disposal of case by Lok Adalat -- there should either be "compromise" or "settlement" between the parties -- no case can be disposed of without compromise or settlement between the parties. (1973) 1 All ER 135 relied on. [Para 7
(2) Words and Phrases -- word "compromise" -- means mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy -- it is an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid law suit amicably settle their differences. Terms del a Ley and Bouvier relied on. [Para 7
(3) Words and Phrases - word "compromise" -- implies some element of accomodation on each side -- compromise is always bilateral and means mutual consent. (1973) 1 All ER 135 relied on. [Para 7
(4) Words and Phrases -- word "settlement" -- is termination of legal proceedings by mutual adjustment. [Para 7
¼1½ fof/k lsok Ákf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 && /kkjk 20 ¼3½] ¼5½ rFkk 19 ¼1½ && yksd vnkyr }kjk ekeys dk fuiVk;k tkuk && i{kdkjksa ds chp le>kSrk vFkok ifjfu/kkZj.k gksuk pkfg, && i{kdkjksa ds chp dksbZ Hkh ekeyk le>kSrk vFkok ifjfu/kkZj.k ds fcuk ugha fuiVk;k tk ldrkA ¼1973½ 1 vky bZ vkj 135 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^^le>kSrk** && rkRi;Z gS nks ;k vf/kd i{kdkj tks lafookn esa gSa ikjLifjd opu && ;g nks ;k vf/kd O;fDr;ksa ds chp djkj gS tks eqdnes dk ifjotZu dj vius fooknksa dks lkSgknZiw.kZ ifjfu/kkZj.k djrs gSaA VeZl~ Ms yk ys rFkk ckafo;j voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^^le>kSrk** && izR;sd i{k ij lek;kstu dk dqN rRo varfgZr djrk gS && le>kSrk lnSo f}i{kh; gS rFkk ikjLifjd lEefr rkRif;Zd gSA ¼1973½ 1 vky bZ vkj 135 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7
¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^^ifjfu/kkZj.k** && ikjLifjd lek;kstu }kjk fof/kd dk;Zokgh dk i;Zolku gSA ¼iSjk 7
Pasayat, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. As noted by this Court in State of Punjab v. Phulan Rani [(2004) 7 SCC 555], a simple matter has unnecessarily been complicated as a result of which there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the matter.
3. The respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 943 of 2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying, inter alia, to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the present appellants to pay interest @ 18% on delayed payment of pension, arrears of pension, DCRG, computation of pension and arrears of GPF and other retirement benefits. The writ petition was sent to the Lok Adalat for settlement being a pension matter and the matter was allowed on 4.3.2003 without any settlement or compromise between the parties. It is to be noted that the appellants contested the claim and filed written statement to the writ petition. The Lok Adalat awarded 12% interest for the delayed payments. A writ petition was filed by the appellants before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Lok Adalat in Civil Writ Petition No. 943 of 2000. The same was dismissed holding that the petition was misconceived. Though the High Court accepted that the disposal by the Lok Adalat was not the proper course, yet it was held that on merits the respondent was entitled to relief.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter could not have been disposed of the Lok Adalat in view of the specific provisions contained in section 20 of the Legal Services. Authorities Act, 1987 (in short "the Act").
5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly proceeded on the basis that even if the matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat, there is nothing wrong in the ultimate result holding that the respondent was entitled to relief.
6. The matters which can be taken by the Lok Adalat for disposal are enumerated in section 20 of the Act which reads as follows:
"20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. --( 1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19.
(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement;
or
(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat,
the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat;
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the authority or committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from anyone of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the c
