The Bombay High Court’s summary disposal of 29 writ petitions following a settlement in the National Lok Adalat underscores a critical procedural principle: once a dispute is resolved through a legally recognized alternative forum, courts must respect its finality without requiring further adjudication.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation filed 29 writ petitions against Sargam Retail Private Ltd, challenging various municipal orders related to property tax assessments, building permit violations, and compliance notices. The petitions alleged non-compliance with municipal bylaws and sought enforcement of statutory penalties.
Procedural History
The litigation spanned multiple forums:
- 2021: 29 writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
- 2023: Parties voluntarily participated in the National Lok Adalat held on 09.12.2023
- 2026: Petitioner’s counsel submitted a letter confirming settlement terms were fully executed
Relief Sought
The Municipal Corporation initially sought judicial enforcement of municipal orders and monetary penalties. The respondent sought quashing of notices deemed arbitrary or procedurally flawed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a settlement recorded in a National Lok Adalat, duly signed and ratified, is sufficient to warrant the summary disposal of pending writ petitions without requiring a formal order of compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the matter had been conclusively resolved at the National Lok Adalat, with both parties agreeing to mutually acceptable terms. Reliance was placed on the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which confers statutory finality on Lok Adalat awards. Counsel argued that continued litigation would be an abuse of process and contrary to the legislative intent of promoting alternative dispute resolution.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not oppose the disposal, acknowledging full compliance with the settlement terms. No counter-arguments were advanced, as the settlement had been voluntarily executed and no further relief was sought.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Section 21, which declares awards of Lok Adalats as decrees of a civil court and final and binding on all parties. The Court noted that the settlement was recorded in writing, signed by both parties, and ratified by the Lok Adalat panel.
"A settlement reached in a National Lok Adalat is not merely an agreement; it is a judicially recognized determination with the force of a decree. To permit continued litigation after such a settlement would undermine the very purpose of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms."
The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata applies by operation of law to Lok Adalat awards, even in writ proceedings. The Court further held that judicial economy and the constitutional mandate under Article 39A to promote justice through accessible, speedy, and inexpensive means required immediate disposal of matters resolved outside the courtroom.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that a settlement recorded in a National Lok Adalat is conclusive and binding, and pending writ petitions must be summarily disposed of upon proof of such settlement. All pending applications were also dismissed as infructuous.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement in Lok Adalat Is a Conclusive Bar
- Practitioners must immediately file an application for disposal of pending litigation upon execution of a Lok Adalat settlement
- Courts are obligated to dismiss cases without requiring fresh adjudication on merits
- Failure to seek disposal after settlement may be viewed as abuse of process
Writ Petitions Are Not Exempt from ADR Finality
- The doctrine of finality applies equally to writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227
- Municipalities, tax authorities, and regulatory bodies cannot revive settled disputes through litigation
- Legal teams must coordinate with Lok Adalat panels to obtain certified copies of settlements for court filing
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Settlements must be recorded in writing and signed by parties and Lok Adalat members
- Oral assurances or informal understandings are insufficient for disposal
- Counsel must submit the settlement document as evidence, not merely rely on verbal confirmation
