Lok adalats can mediate when dispute nears solution: HC

CHANDIGARH: In a significant judgment that will change the way cases are settled out of the courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that permanent lok adalats can step in only when the dispute between the parties is “very near” a solution.

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 26

In a significant judgment that will change the way cases are settled out of the courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that permanent lok adalats can step in only when the dispute between the parties is “very near” a solution.

“It is only in circumstances where dispute between the parties is very near a solution but due to trifles the matter is not ending in settlement the permanent lok adalat can step in,” Justice Bharat Bhushan Parsoon has asserted.

The ruling came on a revision filed by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another petitioner against respondent Kusum Jain. It had challenged an order passed in March 2005 by a permanent lok adalat at Panipat directing the Nigam to release power connection in Jain’s favour. It was argued that the impugned order was obtained by the respondent without bringing correct facts to the adalat’s notice.

Justice Parsoon said that an amicable settlement of dispute between the parties is the first thing the adalat is to aspire for. It is to be brought about in an independent and impartial manner. An attempt is also to be made to assist the parties reach amicable settlement, while conducting conciliation proceedings, he observed.

The adalat may further ask for evidence or other related documents, if it feels oral or documentary evidence is required. The adalat may form an opinion on existence of an element of settlement only after making such efforts. It is required to formulate terms of possible settlement once efforts are made and settlement arrived at is tentatively acceptable to the parties.

It is further required to give the “text” of settlement to the parties for their observations. If the parties reach an agreement, they are required to sign the settlement agreement. The adalat is required to pass an award thereafter on the basis of the settlement.

But when conciliation proceedings are not initiated and the adalat is neither assisted nor guided by the parties to initiate possible amicable settlement, it can decide the dispute on merits.

“If the jurisdiction of the adalat is invoked at a pre-litigation stage in relation to a public utility service provider and rival claim hitting the very foundation of the case of the applicant is taken by the respondent, such dispute cannot be settled by adjudication….,” Justice Parsoon added while accepting the revision petition and setting aside the impugned order.