HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2056/2003 Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd & Ors.

----Petitioners Versus Permanent Lok Adalat And Anr ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ankit Rathore, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General with Sheetanshu Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Tanmay Goyal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

26/11/2025 This Court vide order dated 03.10.2025 requested learned Advocate General to assist the Court on the question as to whether permanent lok adalat has got adjudication powers to adjudicate the civil rights of the citizens without following the procedure prescribed under the Legal Services Authorities Act.

At the outset, learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. G. S. Jayarama reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has also framed the similar question as to whether permanent lok adalat has adjudicatory functions or not.

The answer has been given in the following manner :-

“38. The second issue which is in contention before this Court is whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has any adjudicatory function. As highlighted in the Objects and Reasons accompanying the LSA Amendment Act, its introduction led to the creation of two different types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act, having no adjudicatory power, which can only conduct conciliatory proceedings. The second is a Permanent Lok Adalat, established under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act in respect of public utility services, which can carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions, subject to the procedure to be followed under Section 22-C of the LSA Act. The scheme of the LSA Act makes clear the distinction between the two types of Lok Adalats. Section 20 of the LSA Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall aim to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. If no such compromise or settlement is arrived at, then the record of the case is returned to the court from which the Lok Adalat had received the reference. The court would then proceed to adjudicate the dispute. On the other hand, Section 22-C of the LSA Act provides that a party to a dispute, prior to bringing a dispute before the court i.e. at the pre-litigation stage, can make an application to a Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalat would first conduct conciliation proceedings and attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. However, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, it shall decide the dispute, as long as the dispute does not relate to an offence. Section 22-D further indicates that the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits.

39. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha¹⁶ this Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat performs an adjudicatory role if the conciliation between the parties fails. Elucidating on the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat, this Court observed as follows: (SCC pp.

464-66, paras 25 & 28)

“25. Chapter VI-A stands independently.

Whereas the heading of the Chapter talks of pre- litigation, conciliation and settlement, Section 22- C(8) of the Act speaks of determination. It creates another adjudicatory authority, the decision of which by a legal fiction would be a decision of a civil court. It has the right to decide a case. The term “decide” means to determine; to form a definite opinion; to render judgment. (See Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., 2005 at p. 1253.) Any award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat is executable as a decree. No appeal thereagainst shall lie. The decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties. Whereas on the one hand, keeping in view the parliamentary intent, settlement of all disputes through negotiation, conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat and judicial settlement