IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 13423 of 2023 DCB BANK LTD.

Versus DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY. UJJAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yogendra Bhatwariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Shailendra Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the award dated

20.12.2022 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat, Ujjain.

2. Respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 22-A(B)

of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the permanent Lok Adalat, District Ujjain for award of compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- to him on account of destruction of his crops and the damages suffer therefrom. He submitted that as per the scheme of the State Government his crops had been insured with the non-applicants to the application and he had paid the insurance premium for the same. Due to bad weather the crops got destroyed and his claim was wrongly denied by the non-applicants for award of the insurance amount, hence he has preferred the claim.

3. Notices were issued to non-applicant No.1 to the proceedings i.e.

the present petitioner but no reply was filed on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex parte. Reply was filed by non-applicant No.2. By the impugned award the claim of respondent No.1 has been allowed and he has been directed to be paid the sum as claimed for by him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention to the effect that the impugned award is illegal having been passed without compliance of the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act, 1987 inasmuch as no conciliation proceedings have been carried out which are mandatory even if the petitioner was ex parte therein and was not appearing before the Lok Adalat. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Canara Bank V/s. G.S. Jayarama 2022 (7) SCC 776.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner was absent before the permanent Lok Adalat and had not entered appearance despite service of notice upon him, hence it is not open for it to contend that no notice of the proceedings was issued to it or that the conciliation proceedings were not carried out. Such proceedings could have been carried out only if the petitioner had appeared. The petitioner having himself remained ex parte and not appearing cannot contend that the conciliation proceedings were not carried out. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Bar Council of India V/s. Union of India

2012 (8) SCC 243.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. In the case of Canara Bank (supra) the decision of the Apex Court in Bar Council of India (supra) was taken into consideration and it was held that under the Act, 1987 it is mandatory for the permanent Lok Adalat to conduct conciliation proceedings and thereafter only the matter can be proceeded with further. Without conducting any conciliation proceedings the matter cannot be taken ahead. The same would be so even if the opposite party does not appear. The permanent Lok Adalat would still be bound to follow the step by step procedure laid down by Section 22-C. Even if the petitioner was absent it was the duty of the permanent Lok Adalat to make an effort for conciliation proceedings and propose terms of settlement and only if the petitioner had not responded thereafter then it could have proceeded with. It has been held as under :-

"34. This issue is clearly resolved from a bare reading of Section 22-C. Section 22-C provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is to proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts, in accordance with sub- sections (1) a