Lok Adalat 'Awards' Not Independent Verdict, Should Resist Temptation To Play Role Of Regular Judges: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that 'awards' passed by Lok Adalats are not independent adjudicatory verdicts, rather an administrative act of incorporating terms of settlement or compromise agreed upon by the parties in the form an 'executable order'.

The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi advised the Lok Adalats to refrain from acting as regular Courts and said –

“The Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the role of regular Judges rather they should constantly strive to function as conciliators. The endeavour and effort of the Lok Adalats should be to guide and persuade the parties, with reference to principles of justice, equity and fair play to compromise and settle the dispute by explaining the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of their respective claims.”

Factual Background

Two advocates from the Balangir Bar Association had filed an application under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Balangir seeking issuance of a direction to the petitioners (officials of railways department) to install 'Coach Indication Boards' at Titilagarh, Balangir Railway Station.

The petitioners, who were arrayed as opposite parties before the Lok Adalat, filed two written statements stating that the prayed reliefs pertain to 'policy matters' which are decided by the Railway Board and Government of India through the Ministry of Railways.

Thus, they vehemently pleaded that Zonal Headquarters, Divisional Headquarters and the Station Manager are not competent to address such issue and redress the grievances.

The Lok Adalat, however, directed one of the petitioners to move to the concerned railway authorities within a period of two months from the date of order for release of funds to install Coach Indication Boards at the said railway station.

As the petitioners were not competent to carry out the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, they approached the High Court impugning the same in this writ petition.

Court's Observations

The Court, at the outset, held it in clear terms that the reliefs claimed are policy matters and thus, under the purview and jurisdiction of the relevant department of the government, which cannot be decided by Lok Adalat.

It referred to the judgment in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., wherein the Apex Court had raised eyebrows against the prevalent practice among the presiding officers of Lok Adalats to act like regular judges and pass orders on merits.

“No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement,” the top Court had held further.

Taking into account the above position of law, the Court reiterated that 'award' passed by Lok Adalat does not constitute independent verdict and observed –

“The "award" of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.”

It also underlined that the effort of the Lok Adalats should be to persuade the parties to compromise and settle their disputes being guided by principles of justice, equity and fair play and by explaining advantages and disadvantages of their respective claims.

Accordingly, the Court found fault with the award passed by the Lok Adalat which had required the petitioners to arrange for Coach Indication Boards and consequently, quashed the same.

Case Title: Station Manager, Railway Station, Balangir Town & Anr. v. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (PSU), Balangir & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 16710 of 2014

Date of Judgment: June 25, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. B.K. Padhi, Central Govt. Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents: None

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 53

Click Here To Read/Download Order