Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10239
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI, J
Arun Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
Karan Babbar – Respondent
WP 8799/2023
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri Yash Raj Patel - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Dinesh Kaushal - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
A Lok Adalat award cannot be challenged without evidence of fraud, emphasizing the need for reasoned judicial decisions to ensure transparency and justice.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Lok Adalat - Challenge to award - Petition filed to contest the adequacy of compensation awarded by Lok Adalat - Respondent argued that the award was based on mutual agreement without coercion - Court dismissed the petition, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Srinivasappa v. M. Mallamma (2022) 17 SCC 460, emphasizing that a writ court cannot set aside a Lok Adalat award without evidence of fraud. (Paras 34-36)
(B) Judicial Reasoning - The necessity of providing reasons for judicial decisions is underscored, as it ensures transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. (Paras 34-36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the Lok Adalat award of Rs.4,85,000/- claiming inadequate compensation despite a mutual settlement. The respondent maintained that the settlement was made freely and without coercion.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Lok Adalat's award, stating that without allegations of fraud, interference was not warranted. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a claim for additional compensation.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the Lok Adalat award and the conditions under which a writ petition could challenge such an award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a Lok Adalat award cannot be set aside without proof of fraud, reinforcing the principle that judicial decisions must be reasoned to ensure justice and transparency.
Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to file a claim case.
ORDER
The petition has been originally filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the award passed in Lok Adalat on 13.08.2020 in MACC/3679/2020 mainly on the ground that though the award was passed in Lok Adalat on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties, despite that the petitioner did not get the adequate amount of compensation for which he was otherwise entitled.
However, the said submission has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and submits that once the award of Lok Adalat has been passed mentioning therein that with the agreement of the parties, the settlement took place at Rs.4,85,000/- and both the parties have entered into the settlement with free mind and without any pressure or coercion then in such a circumstance, interference exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. He has also submitted that there is no allegation made in the petition that any pressure tactics was adopted or due to coercion petitioner entered into the agreement and therefore, the interference is not permissible.
Although, this Court decided this petition vide order dated 23.11.2023 and dismissed the same but again an application i.e. I.A. No.18471/2023 has been filed for review/recall of the order passed by this Court in this petition on 23.11.2023.
Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has also moved an I.A. No.14720/2023 for taking additional facts on record which has also not been considered.
However, by the aforesaid applications, learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to establish that the Lok Adalat is required to pass an award with the agreement of the parties inconsonance with the procedure prescribed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and as such, he seeks recall of the order dated 23.11.2023 and is asking that the petition should be reheard and it be allowed.
Shri Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has opposed the applications and also filed the reply reiterating the same facts which he has argued at the time of deciding the petition vide order dated 23.11.2023.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and facts mentioned in I.A. No.18471/2023 and I.A. No.14720/2023, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter pursuant to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa and others v. M. Mallamma and others (2022) 17 SCC 460 in which, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARITOSH Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"34. While we recognise that a writ petition would be maintainable against an award of the Lok Adalat, especially when such writ petition has been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award of compromise, a writ court cannot, in a casual manner, dehors any reasoning, set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. The award of a Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulently arrived at.
35. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself” vide Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Hrcec, Mysore [ Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Hrcec, Mysore , (1979) 4 SCC 642 ] , is also apposite.
36. On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi-judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [ Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan , (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] , wherein after referring to a number of judgments, this Court summarised at para 47 of the judgment the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under:
(a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice mus
