The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that Permanent Lok Adalats must strictly comply with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before adjudicating disputes. The judgment underscores that a mere general reference to conciliation is insufficient, setting aside an order that failed to follow this statutory requirement and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, the Executive Engineer, challenged an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh, in a dispute involving the respondents, Ant Ram and another. The impugned order was assailed on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not conduct the mandatory conciliation process as required under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Key Facts
- The dispute pertained to an unspecified claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh.
- The impugned order dated 17.01.2026 was passed in P.L.A. Case No. 184 of 2021.
- The Permanent Lok Adalat made only a general reference to conciliation, without conducting the process as mandated by law.
Procedural History
- 17.01.2026: Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh, passed the impugned order in P.L.A. Case No. 184 of 2021.
- 2026: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9429 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order.
- The petitioner relied on the precedent set in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, 2021:AHC:151400, which held that the conciliation process under Section 22-C is mandatory.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 and a direction to the Permanent Lok Adalat to pass a fresh order after complying with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the Permanent Lok Adalat is legally bound to conduct the conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before passing an order, and whether a general reference to conciliation suffices to meet this statutory requirement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to comply with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
- Reliance was placed on the judgment in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, 2021:AHC:151400, which held that the conciliation process is a prerequisite to adjudication by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
- It was argued that the impugned order merely made a general reference to conciliation without actually conducting the process, rendering the order legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent
- The learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents could not dispute the legal position cited by the petitioner or the insufficiency of the consideration given by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the provisions of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, which mandates that the Permanent Lok Adalat must conduct a conciliation process before adjudicating a dispute. The Court observed that the impugned order merely contained a general reference to conciliation without demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirement.
"The requirement for process of conciliation as provided under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, was not carried out by Permanent Lok Adalat in impugned order, except a general reference which is not sufficient."
The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, 2021:AHC:151400, wherein it was held that the conciliation process under Section 22-C is mandatory and cannot be bypassed by a general reference. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance is non-negotiable and that the Permanent Lok Adalat must adhere to the statutory framework to ensure fairness and legality in its orders.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh, in P.L.A. Case No. 184 of 2021. The matter was remitted to the concerned respondent for fresh consideration, with a direction to pass a fresh order after complying with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and taking note of the judgment in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- The judgment reaffirms that Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 imposes a mandatory duty on Permanent Lok Adalats to conduct a conciliation process before adjudicating disputes.
- A general reference to conciliation in an order is insufficient to meet this requirement. Practitioners must ensure that the conciliation process is explicitly documented and followed.
Precedent Must Be Followed
- The Court's reliance on Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti underscores the importance of adhering to established precedents. Lower forums must take note of binding judgments to avoid procedural lapses.
- Key Takeaway: When challenging orders of Permanent Lok Adalats, practitioners should scrutinize whether the mandatory conciliation process was followed and cite relevant precedents to highlight non-compliance.
Remedy for Non-Compliance
- The judgment provides a clear remedy for parties aggrieved by orders passed without complying with Section 22-C. Such orders are liable to be set aside, and the matter can be remitted for fresh consideration.
- Practitioners can use this judgment to challenge orders where the conciliation process was bypassed or inadequately conducted.
