Lok Adalats Should Resist Temptation To Play Role Of Regular Judges; Should Rather Strive To Function As Conciliators: Orissa HC
The Orissa High Court observed that the Lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the role of regular Judges and should rather strive to function as conciliators.
The Court held that an ‘award’ passed by the Lok Adalat was not an independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The Bench stated that issues pertaining to policy decisions were not to be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
A Single Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed, “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.”
CGC B.K. Padhi represented the petitioner.
Advocates of the Balangir Bar Association had filed an application under Section 22G of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (the Act) praying for issuance of a direction to the Petitioners to to install Coach Indication Boards at Balangir Railway Station as the absence of such boards was causing public inconvenience.
The petitioner filed a written statement pointing out that the relief sought was pertaining to policy matters which are decided by the Railway Board and the Government of India through the Ministry of Railways. Hence, the Zonal Headquarters, Divisional Headquarters and the Station Manager were not competent to grant the reliefs claimed.
However, the Permanent Lok Adalat passed an award directing the petitioners to release funds for the Coach Indication Board at the Station. The petitioners challenged this award before the High Court.
The High Court clarified, “The issue as referred above is purely an issue in the policy domain which cannot be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat.”
“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,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide on policy matters. “The issue referred above cannot be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PSU) rather it can only be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the award and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Station Manager & Anr. v. Chairman & Ors.
