Mere Procedural Violations Not Sufficient To Vitiate Lok Adalat's Award Of Settlement: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that in order to vitiate an award passed by a Legal Services Authority, it would have to be established that the Authority had no jurisdiction to pass such an award, and mere procedural violations would not suffice.

A division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen dismissed an intra-court appeal against a single judge's order affirming an order passed at a Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Kochi, and held:

"Constitution itself defines the scope of judicial review. Any regulation made invoking the statutory provision cannot enlarge or expand the scope and width of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, taking note of the regulation as above, we are of the view that the intention of regulation allowing a challenge on a threshold by judicial review is on a well defined parameter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and nothing else. Thus, procedural violation, affecting jurisdiction, the court may be able to interfere with such Award passed and mere violation itself will not be sufficient to hold that it would vitiate the award. To vitiate the award, it must be found that the authority have no competency under any other provisions to hold such Adalath to pass an Award". 

The Court further explained the scope behind Regulation 12(3) of the National Legal Service Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 ('Regulations 2009'), which permits a challenge to an award based on settlement, on the ground of violation of procedures mentioned in Section 20 ('Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats') of Legal Services Authorities Act, through a petition filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

The appellant submitted that they had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,83,808/- in two instalments, pursuant to which the award was passed. The appellant challenged the Award on the twin grounds of first, procedural violation, and secondly, the threat meted out to him by the third respondent pertaining to the impugned award. 

Advocates Leejoy Mathew V., and Sabu S. Kallaramoola appearing on behalf of the appellant, relied upon Regulation 12(3) of the Regulations, 2009 to observe that the right to approach the High Court challenging an Award based on settlement, through a plea could be maintained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It was submitted that there ought to have been an application by the parties to assume jurisdiction to pass an Award as per Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('Act, 1987'), as Section 20 would 'override all other provisions.'

Appellant's counsel argued that Section 20(5) of Legal Service Authorities Act, 1986 laid down that the jurisdiction to pass Award by Lok Adalath is in a pending matter before the court and not otherwise [and since] no such case was pending, the award was passed without jurisdiction.

In negating all arguments made by the appellant on merits, the Court noted that the Lok Adalat was competent to pass an Award with respect to any matter falling within its jurisdiction and not pending before a court, as contemplated under Section 19(5) of the Act, 1987, which stipulates the jurisdiction of a Lok Adalath in determining and arriving at a compromise or settlement between parties. 

"In such circumstances, we cannot find any procedural lapse affecting jurisdictional authority of Lok Adalath to pass such an Award. The court cannot interfere with such Award. The learned single judge rightly turned down the challenge," it observed. 

The appeal was thus dismissed. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 687 

Case Title: Babumon K.G. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Case Number: W.A. No. 547 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment