Whether Lok adalat can pass contingent award relating to pending matters before court?
In the case at hand, I see that the parties have agreed into the terms of the award on the happening of a specific contingency that this Court allow Crl.M.C. No. 295/2013. This was a matter of pure conjuncture and speculation. I am concerned that the Award did not provide for a prescripttion as to how the parties would be regulated, if the Court had dismissed Crl.M.C. No. 295/2013. Both parties appear to have been inexplicably confident that this Court would act. in a particular fashion and that the said Crl.M.C. would be allowed in future. I do not see how the parties could entertain such an impression in their minds, and how the Lok Adalath could have allowed the parties to enter in to such an award.
11. I see that the Lok Adalath has merely endorsed the terms of concurrence of the parties without considering the probable issues of violation of morals and public policy in permitting parties to settle on contingent terms which depends on the decisions of this Court in future. This is grossly inappropriate and I am of the view that the Lok Adalath misdirected itself in allowing the parties to enter in to a settlement which is contra bonos mores and contra public policy.
12. I am of the firm view that the Lok Adalaths have a duty to ensure that the settlements entered into by the parties confirm to law, morals and public policy of the Society and the Polity. Any settlement entered in contravention of these would be completely unsustainable and incompetent. If this Court notices that the settlement is one that offers undue advantage to one side on account of prescripttion of certain contingencies, it becomes a case of contravention of public morals as also of public policy and, therefore, this Court would obtain certain justification in interfering with such Awards under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it being null, void and non-est.
13. The unexpendable requirement of Lok Adalats to invest due care, attention and position while passing awards has already been spoken to about by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajagopala Rao v. State Police Chief, MANU/KE/0856/2016 : 2016 (3) KLT 358 : 2016 (3) KLJ 754 : 2016 ICO 379. The Bench had formatted certain guidelines and are very pertinent to read. I, therefore, deem it necessary to extract the relevant paragraph of the said judgment as under:
"18. In order to prevent the menace of passing awards without due care, attention and precision by Lok. Adalats, we intend to formulate some guidelines. We may hastily add that they are not exhaustive and may take in other things as well, depending on the facts of each case. The crucial points to be borne in mind by the persons presiding over the Lok Adalats and the lawyers appearing for the parties are thus:
(i) The persons presiding shall thoroughly study and clearly understand the facts of the case coming up for settlement.
(ii) They must have a clear understanding about the legal issues involved in the dispute between the parties.
(iii) If the parties have engaged lawyers, they shall also participate in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat so that a proper settlement could be arrived at.
(iv) The persons presiding over the Lok Adalat and the lawyers concerned shall bear in mind the fundamental principles, under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, essentially required for executing a legally enforceable agreement.
(v) They shall bear in mind the principles under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also, so that the award must be in the form of an enforceable decree, if the parties so wish. This is all the more important because by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award made by Lok Adalats shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.
(vi) The persons presiding over the Lok Adalat shall see that the award passed is clear in its terms and there shall be no room for any confusion in respect of the terms and conditions in the award. They shall take care to see that on account of ill-drafting of the compromise, no litigation in future arises in respect of the matters once settled.
(vii) They shall see that the awards passed are not only legal, but also conforming to the norms prescribed for a decree with all the required details in clear and explicit terms."
14. However, in spite of express declarations by this Court, it is extremely disheartening and disquieting that lessons are not being learnt requiring repeated interventions of this Court.
15. In the case at hand, I see that the absence of a Clause in Ext. P7 as to what would happen in the event this Court dismisses Crl.M.C. No. 295/2013, would render the settlement between the parties, as recorded by the Lok Adalath, inoperative and completely contingent and therefore, contrary to public morals. Contingent Awards cannot be countenanced, especially when such contingencies are relating to pending matters before Courts, especially this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
W.P.(C) No. 35992 of 2015
Decided On: 07.04.2017
P.O. Thomas Vs. Kollam Taluk Legal Service Committee and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Devan Ramachandran, J.
