While deciding the appeal against this verdict, the Supreme Court said that the High Court’s findings were incorrect. Distinguishing between the powers of a Lok Adalat and a Permanent Lok Adalat, the Court said,
“The Act indicates that there are similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats: (i) they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties before them, and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties (ii) in doing so, they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles and (iii) their awards, deemed to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an appeal. Yet, despite these similarities, there are crucial differences under the statute,” the judges noted.
It was further held that despite the similarities in power, the PLA has wider powers than the Lok Adalat. If there isn’t any settlement arrived at between the parties, the PLA should still make attempts to settle the dispute and even help in drafting the terms of settlement, the Court noted. If the party present before the PLA does not agree or if the absent party does not respond in a sufficient period of time, only then can the PLA adjudicate the dispute on its merits under Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Act, it held.
“The PLA 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 PLA is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits.”
The judgment went on to state that the conciliation proceedings under the Act are mandatory and that the PLA cannot bypass this step.
Source: Barandbench
