K.K. MOHANAN Vs. SASI ANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext. P-7 award passed by the 'Lok Adalat', organised by the Legal Services Committee, Chenganoor Taluk, under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The main ground of challenge is that the petitioner had not participated in the Adalat nor he had signed the settlement/compromise, and hence the award is not valid. The petitioner herein, who is represented in this proceedings through a power of attorney holder, is the defendant in O.S. Nos. 19/2008, 31/2008 and 32/2008 on the files of the Sub Court, Chenganoor. He had filed written statements in all the 3 cases. Since the petitioner left to Gulf countries, he could not participate in the Lok Adalat. Instead his wife attended to the Lok Adalat, on receiving notice. It is alleged that the petitioner's wife was demanded to sign some papers to which she obliged without knowing that it is a compromise, Contention of the petitioner is that the wife who had signed the compromise is not a party to the suit and she was not authorised to arrive at or to sign any compromise on behalf of the petitioner. Hence it is contended that there is no valid settlement arrived and there cannot be any valid award under Section 20 of the Act. On a perusal of Ext. P-7 award it is evident that the plaintiff in the suit as well as the wife of the petitioner had only signed the compromise, which forms part of the award. Another signature contained in Ext. P-7 is that of a Member of the Lok Adalat, who is an Advocate. The award bears signature of the Secretary of the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chenganoor. The award or the settlement/compromise was not seen signed either by the defendant or by his counsel. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner's wife had voluntarily signed the settlement/compromise after fully knowing the contents thereof, question arises as to the validity of Ext. P-7 award, as an executable decree as provided under Section 22(3) of the Act.

(2.) Sri Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel for the respondents had raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Since Ext. P-7 assumes characteristics of a civil decree, challenge against its sustainability cannot be looked into in a writ petition filed under Article 227, is the contention. According to the counsel, the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227, which is visitorial in nature cannot be exercised to grant such a relief. It is pertinent to note that, Section 21(2) of the Act provides that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be final and will be binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. Therefore it is evident that a party aggrieved by an award of the Adalat is not permitted to challenge the same in appeal or revision/review. Question as to whether the impugned award is one issued with proper jurisdiction or as to whether the award is capable of having validity as an order or decree of a court of law, is a fundamental question. It affects the very sustainability of the award itself. If the award suffers from any basic illegality or infirmity which vitiates its validity, execution of such an award will cause severe prejudice and irreparable injuries to the party affected. Question as to whether it is non est under law is a matter which can definitely be looked into by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227. If the award is a non est under law, then declining interference will lead to grant of enforceability to the same, which cannot be permitted Prevention of such gross illegality arising out of erroneous exercise of powers conferred under the Statute need to be restrained, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court. Therefore the contention with respect to maintainability cannot be accepted.

(3.) Question to be decided is as to whether the award can be sustained when one of the parties to the lis or his authorised agent or attorney has not signed the compromise/settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to relevant provisions in the Act. Section 19(5) provides that Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the "parties to a dispute" in respect of any case. Under Section 20(3) of the Act it provided that the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement "between the parties". The procedure contemplated under the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998 insist upon that, an award of the Lok Adalat should be signed by the "parties to the dispute". Regulation 33 specifically provides so. It is contended that if the petitioner or his duly authorised agent has not signed the award and hence the same cannot be treated as valid under the provisions of the Act.