9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat award is maintainable. 2. Who can file a writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat award. 3. Grounds for challenging the Lok Adalat award. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat award is maintainable. Under Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is final and binding on all parties. No appeal shall lie against the award. However, a writ petition may be entertained if the award was passed without a compromise or settlement as envisaged u/s 20(3) and (5) of the Act, or if obtained by impersonation, misrepresentation, or fraud. The High Court can issue writs under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India against such awards. Issue 2: Who can file a writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat award. Parties to the compromise or settlement can challenge the award on grounds of illegality, fraud, or impropriety. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition and must seek redressal through a separate suit or proceeding. However, in extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice due to fraud or misrepresentation, a writ petition may be maintained within a reasonable period, provided there is prima facie evidence of such fraud or misrepresentation. Issue 3: Grounds for challenging the Lok Adalat award. The Lok Adalat cannot pass an award unless there is a compromise and settlement u/s 20(3) and (5) of the Act. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj and State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh clarified that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory functions and can only pass awards based on mutual settlements. If no compromise is reached, the Lok Adalat cannot pass an award. Challenges to Lok Adalat awards under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution are limited to cases where there is no valid compromise or settlement. Findings and reasons therefore: The petitioners, who were not parties to the original suit or the Lok Adalat award, challenged the award after five years. The Court found that the partnership deed dated 01.4.2003, claimed by the petitioners, was executed on stamp papers purchased in 2001, raising doubts about its authenticity. The respondents provided certificates from the District Registrar and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer confirming that the third respondent firm continued with respondents 1, 2, and 4 as partners from 01.4.2003 to 31.3.2004, and the petitioners were not involved. The Court concluded that the award passed by Lok Adalat on 07.2.2004 was based on a valid compromise among the original partners and dismissed the writ petition as misconceived, emphasizing that entertaining such petitions would defeat the purpose of the Act and the Lok Adalat system. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
|
