The Allahabad High Court has underscored the mandatory nature of the conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, holding that Permanent Lok Adalats cannot pass orders without first attempting conciliation between parties. The judgment sets aside an order that failed to comply with this procedural requirement, remitting the matter for fresh consideration with clear directions to adhere to statutory provisions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, challenged an order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which disposed of a claim filed by the respondents, Smt. Neelam Devi and 2 Others. The impugned order lacked detailed reasoning and, critically, did not demonstrate compliance with the mandatory conciliation process prescribed under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Key Facts
- The respondents filed a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking relief against the petitioner insurance company.
- The Lok Adalat passed an order on 10.12.2025 without recording any efforts at conciliation between the parties.
- The petitioner argued that the order was procedurally flawed as it did not comply with Section 22-C, which mandates a conciliation attempt before adjudication.
Procedural History
- Claim filed by respondents: Date not specified in the judgment, but the dispute arose from an insurance claim.
- 10.12.2025: Permanent Lok Adalat passed the impugned order without conciliation.
- 2026: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22048 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Lok Adalat’s order dated 10.12.2025 on the ground that it was passed without complying with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C. The petitioner further sought remand of the matter to the Lok Adalat for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a Permanent Lok Adalat can pass an order under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, without first attempting conciliation between the parties, and whether the absence of such an attempt renders the order legally unsustainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others (2021:AHC:151400), which held that the conciliation process under Section 22-C is mandatory and cannot be bypassed. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without any effort to reconcile the parties, making it procedurally deficient.
For the Respondent
The learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents did not dispute the legal position cited by the petitioner. The respondents did not present any substantive counter-arguments to justify the bypassing of the conciliation process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, which outlines the procedure for Permanent Lok Adalats. The provision mandates that before adjudicating a dispute, the Lok Adalat must attempt conciliation between the parties. The Court observed that the impugned order merely contained a general reference to conciliation without demonstrating any actual effort to reconcile the parties.
"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, which held that the conciliation process is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement. The judgment emphasized that the Lok Adalat must record its efforts at conciliation and the outcome of such efforts before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute. The absence of such recording in the impugned order rendered it legally unsustainable.
The Court further noted that the impugned order did not contain any reasoned analysis or findings on the merits of the dispute. It merely stated that the claim was disposed of without addressing the statutory requirement of conciliation.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2025. The matter was remitted to the concerned Permanent Lok Adalat for fresh consideration, with a direction to comply with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C before passing any order. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, without awarding any costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conciliation Is Not a Mere Formality
The judgment reaffirms that the conciliation process under Section 22-C is a substantive requirement and not a procedural formality. Practitioners must ensure that:
- Permanent Lok Adalats record their efforts at conciliation in the order.
- The order reflects the outcome of the conciliation attempt, whether successful or unsuccessful.
- Failure to comply with this requirement may render the order vulnerable to challenge.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts will scrutinize orders passed by Lok Adalats to ensure compliance with statutory procedures.
- Orders that bypass or inadequately record the conciliation process are liable to be set aside.
- Practitioners should cite this judgment to challenge procedurally deficient orders passed by Lok Adalats.
