IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (230) CWP-10731-2023 Date of decision:- 11.02.2026 DR. VIRAT ALIAS VIRATVEER YADAV AND ANOTHER ... Petitioner Versus PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Bhuwnesh Lakhera, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S.K. Dhanda, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. ( ORAL )

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to ex-parte award dated 28.02.2023, Annexure P-1, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Rewari (for short the “Lok Adalat”).

2. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “1987 Act”), stating that he retired from the post of Deputy District Attorney on 30.06.2021. Petitioners assured him that their hospital was empanelled with Government of Haryana. Respondent No.2 was infected with Covid-19 and was admitted in the hospital of the petitioner on 14.04.2021 and was discharged on 22.04.2021. An amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was spent on the hospitalization and when he raised a claim for reimbursement, an amount of Rs.53,837/- was reimbursed. On inquiry, respondent No.2 came to know that the hospital was de-empanelled on 09.12.2020, but this fact was concealed by the petitioners. Despite service, petitioners did not appear and impugned ex-parte award, Annexure P-2, was passed directing them to refund Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition.

3. Sole argument raised by the counsel from the petitioner is that Lok Adalat has adjudicated the dispute without attempting to bring about a conciliation between the parties and provisions of 1987 Act have been breached. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned award and has asserted that petitioners did not deliberately appear before the Lok Adalat and they were proceeded against ex-parte. It is his assertion that Lok Adalat has followed the procedure laid down under the 1987 Act before determining the dispute on merits.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of view that there is merit in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned award shows that indeed no attempt was made by the Lok Adalat to bring about a conciliation between the parties. After initiating ex-parte proceedings against petitioners, Lok Adalat discussed the evidence led by respondent No.2 and adjudicated the dispute on the basis of the documents produced by him.

5. Lok Adalat gets the power to decide the dispute on merits only after conciliation process between the parties does not fructify into a settlement. It is mandatory for the Lok Adalat to take recourse to the conciliation process even in case respondents have been proceeded against ex parte. Reliance can be placed upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. G.S. Jayarama (2022) 7 SCC 776. The relevant extract of judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“36. The appellant's argument, however, is that if the opposite party does not appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it can dispense with the conciliation proceedings and straightaway adjudicate the dispute 22-C(8). We are unable to accept this submission. Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure laid down by Section 22-C Under 22-C(3), it would require the party before it to file their submissions and documents, and make the best efforts to communicate them to the opposite party for their response. If it is satisfied that no response is forthcoming from the absent opposite party, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall still attempt to settle the dispute through settlement under Section 22-C(4). It is important to remember that Section 22-C(5) imposes a duty upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to be independent and impartial in at