GUWAHATI, India, Feb. 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 7:

1. Heard Shri JK Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

2. Considering the issue involved, the presence of respondent no.2 for adjudication of this proceeding may not be necessary. This Court has also noted that pursuant to earlier orders passed by this Court, the records of the learned Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short Commission) have been requisitioned and placed before this Court.

3. The short question which has arisen for determination is whether a settlement can be arrived at in a National Lok Adalat in the absence of a party and only with the presence of the learned counsel for the said party.

4. As per the facts projected, the learned Commission was seized with an appeal against an ex parte order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Goalpara, in CP case No. 02/2017, whereby the present petitioners were directed to pay certain amount to the respondent no.1. The said appeal was numbered as FA No. 76/2018. The appeal was taken up for consideration in the National Lok Adalat held on 14.09.2024. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though a purported settlement was arrived at in the National Lok Adalat, the petitioners were not represented by their authorized officer and the counsel of the petitioners had made certain concession without any authority. It is the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2024 which has been put to challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. At the outset, it may be noted that orders passed in a Lok Adalat are not liable to be challenged in any further proceedings as it is final in nature. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act which reads as follows:

"21. AWARD OF LOK ADALAT. _ 2[(1)] Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred on it under sub-section (1) of Sec.20, the court fee paid in such cases shall be refunded; in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award."

6. It is however a settled law that the aforesaid provision would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of Bharvagi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred and relied upon the decision of a Larger Bench (Three Judges) in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 and had made the following observations:

"25. The question arose before this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of State of Punjab (supra) as to what is the remedy available to the person aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act. In that case, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court relating to a claim case arising out of Motor Vehicle Act.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x9n5kmOYtCavd0bhzDtnPtZskGti0ybWHEgmtxFz4rgN&caseno=WP(C)/4029/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010153862025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.