The Allahabad High Court has underscored the mandatory nature of the conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before Permanent Lok Adalats can pass binding orders. This judgment clarifies that a mere general reference to conciliation is insufficient, reinforcing procedural compliance as a prerequisite for valid adjudication by Lok Adalats.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, challenged an order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh. The impugned order failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory conciliation process prescribed under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The petitioner contended that the Lok Adalat’s order was procedurally flawed, as it did not reflect any meaningful attempt at conciliation between the parties.
Key Facts
- The dispute involved a claim against the petitioner, though the exact nature of the claim (e.g., insurance, consumer, or contractual) was not detailed in the judgment
- The Permanent Lok Adalat passed an order on 30.09.2025 without adhering to the conciliation process under Section 22-C
- The petitioner relied on a precedent from this Court: Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, 2021:AHC:151400, which held that the conciliation process is mandatory
Procedural History
- 30.09.2025: Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh, passed the impugned order
- Post-30.09.2025: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3920 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court
- 01.07.2026: The High Court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Permanent Lok Adalat’s order dated 30.09.2025 and remand of the matter for fresh consideration, ensuring compliance with Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
The Legal Issue
The central question 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.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied 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 under Section 22-C is mandatory
- Argued that the impugned order merely made a general reference to conciliation without demonstrating actual compliance
- Contended that the Lok Adalat’s failure to follow the prescribed procedure vitiated its order
For the Respondent
- The Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents did not dispute the legal position cited by the petitioner
- No substantive counter-arguments were presented regarding the mandatory nature of the conciliation process
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, which mandates that Permanent Lok Adalats must attempt conciliation between the parties before adjudicating a dispute. The Court observed that the impugned order merely contained a general reference to conciliation without evidence of actual efforts to reconcile the parties’ differences.
"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, which held that the conciliation process is not a mere formality but a mandatory procedural step. The Court distinguished between a general reference to conciliation and actual compliance with the statutory requirement, emphasizing that the latter is essential for the validity of the Lok Adalat’s order.
The Court further noted that the burden of proof lies with the Lok Adalat to demonstrate that it has fulfilled its statutory duty under Section 22-C. Mere mention of conciliation in the order, without evidence of efforts to reconcile the parties, does not satisfy the legal requirement.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh. The matter was remitted to the concerned respondent for fresh consideration, with a direction to comply with the mandatory conciliation process under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The Court did not award costs or specify a compliance timeline.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conciliation Is Not a Formality
- Practitioners must ensure that Permanent Lok Adalats actually attempt conciliation before adjudicating disputes
- A general reference to conciliation in the order is insufficient; the Lok Adalat must demonstrate active efforts to reconcile the parties
- Courts will scrutinize Lok Adalat orders to verify compliance with Section 22-C
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Section 22-C imposes a mandatory duty on Lok Adalats to attempt conciliation
- Failure to comply with this duty renders the Lok Adalat’s order legally vulnerable to challenge
- Parties aggrieved by Lok Adalat orders can seek judicial review on grounds of procedural non-compliance
Precedent Reinforces Mandatory Nature
- The judgment reaffirms the holding in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, making it a binding precedent for future cases
- Lower courts and Lok Adalats must adhere to this precedent to avoid judicial intervention
