Holding

Conciliation proceedings under Section 22‑C are mandatory, and while a Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory powers, it may exercise them only after completing the prescribed conciliation process.

Summary

The appeal concerned an award of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) that had granted Canara Bank repayment of a loan from G S Jayarama without any recorded conciliation. The High Court had set aside the award, holding that the PLA lacked adjudicatory power and had bypassed mandatory conciliation steps. The Supreme Court examined the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and held that (i) the conciliation proceedings prescribed in Section 22‑C are mandatory and must be completed before a PLA can decide a dispute on merits, even if a party is absent; and (ii) a PLA does possess adjudicatory functions, but only after the prescribed conciliatory process fails. Consequently, the award was invalid because the PLA did not follow the mandatory conciliation procedure. The Court upheld the Division Bench’s setting aside of the award and dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the conciliation proceedings under Section 22‑C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 are mandatory before a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a dispute on merits.
Whether a Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory functions under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970
Court Fees Act, 1870
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987s. 19, s. 20, s. 21, s. 22, s. 22-B, s. 22-C, s. 22-D, s. 22-E

Subjects

Legal Services Authorities ActPermanent Lok Adalatconciliationadjudicationpublic utility servicesSection 22‑Caward set asidepre‑litigation dispute resolutionalternative dispute resolution

Judgment

162 [2022]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 4 S.C.R. 162 [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A CANARA BANK
v.
G S JAYARAMA
(Civil Appeal No. 3872 of 2022)
B MAY 19, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987: s. 22-C – Cognizance
of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat – Conciliation proceedings u/s.
C
22-C, nature of – Permanent Lok Adalat, if has adjudicatory
functions the under the Act – Held: Conciliation proceedings u/s.
22-C are mandatory in nature – s.22-C provides a step-by-step
scheme on how a matter is to proceed – First step is filing of
application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts –
D Thereafter, on parties filing requisite submissions and documents,
the Permanent Lok Adalat attempts conciliation between the parties
and thereafter, draws up terms of settlement and propose them to
the parties – If parties agree thereto, the Permanent Lok Adalat has
to pass an award and if the parties do not agree, then Permanent
Lok Adalat may decide the disputes on merits as long as the dispute
E
does not relate to an offence – Thus, the adjudication can only be
made when the parties disagree to the terms of settlement formulated
on the basis of the conciliation proceedings – Permanent Lok
Adalats are not allowed to bypass the step – Main goal was the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities,
F with a decision on merits being the last resort – As regards, the
adjudicatory functions, the Permanent Lok Adalats are the second
type of Lok Adalat established u/s. 22-B in respect of utility services
to carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions subject
to procedure followed u/s. 22-C – Lok Adalat constituted u/s. 19
cannot perform any adjudicatory function in terms of s. 20 – On
G
facts, holding of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory
functions, and that the Permanent Lok Adalats cannot act as a
regular civil court in adjudicating the dispute between the parties,
is clearly incorrect, however, the Division Bench rightly held that
H the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory conciliation
162
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 163

proceedings since the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat does not A
indicate any attempt made by it to propose terms of settlement to the
parties and their rejection – It states that once the respondent and
his guarantor did not appear, it adjudicated the dispute on merits
in favour of the respondent, and the Permanent Lok Adalat could
not have done so and on this point the Division Bench rightly set
B
aside the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 22- C of the Legal Services Authorities
Act 1987 provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is to
proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the C
filing of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil
courts, in accordance with sub-Sections (1) and (2). The second
step is the parties filing requisite submissions and documents
before the Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-Section
(3). On the completion of the third step to its satisfaction, the
Permanent Lok Adalat can move to the fourth step of attempting D
conciliation between the parties, in accordance with sub-Sections
(4), (5) and (6). Subsequently, in the fifth step in accordance with
sub-Section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw up terms
of settlement on the basis of the conciliation proceedings, and
propose them to the parties. If the parties agree, the Permanent E
Lok Adalat has to pass an award on the basis of the agreed upon
terms of settlement. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement
on the fifth step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the
final step and decide the dispute on its merits. [Para 24][182-G-
H; 183-A-C]
F
1.2 The submission that if the opposite party does not appear
before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it can dispense with the
conciliation proceedings and straightaway adjudicate the dispute
under Section 22-C(8), cannot be accepted. Even if the opposite
party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound
to follow the step-by-step procedure laid down by Section 22-C. G
Under Section 22-C(3), it would require the party before it to file
their submissions and documents, and make the best efforts to
communicate them to the opposite party for their response. If it
is satisfied that no response is forthcoming from the absent
opposite party, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall still attempt to H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A settle the dispute through settlement under Section 22-C(4). It
is important to remember that Section 22-C(5) imposes a duty
upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to be independent and impartial
in attempting to amicably settle the dispute, while Section 22-
C(6) imposes a duty upon the party present before the Permanent
Lok Adalat to cooperate in good faith and assist the Permanent
B
Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat, based on the
materials before it, shall propose terms of settlement and
communicate them to both parties, regardless of whether they
participated in the proceedings. If the party present before the
Permanent Lok Adalat does not agree or if the absent party does
C not respond in a sufficient period of time, only then can the
Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicate the dispute on its merits under
Section 22-C(8). Keeping in mind the principles enshrined in
Section 22-D, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall once again notify
the absent party of its decision to adjudicate the dispute on its
merits, in case it wishes to join the proceedings at that stage.
D
[Para 26][184-D-H; 185-A]
1.3 Section 22-C (8) is amply clear that it only comes into
effect once an agreement under Section 22-C (7) has failed. The
corollary of this is that the proposed terms of settlement under
Section 22-C (7), and the conciliation proceedings preceding it,
E are mandatory. If Permanent Lok Adalats are allowed to bypass
this step just because a party is absent, it would be tantamount to
deciding disputes on their merit ex parte and issuing awards which
will be final, binding and will be deemed to be decrees of civil
courts. This was simply not the intention of the Parliament when
F it introduced the LSA Amendment Act. Its main goal was still the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public
utilities, with a decision on merits always being the last resort.
Therefore, the conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of
the LSA Act are mandatory in nature. [Para 27][185-B-D]
G 1.4 As highlighted in the Objects and Reasons accompanying
the LSA Amendment Act, its introduction led to the creation of
two different types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok Adalat
constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act, having no
adjudicatory power, which can only conduct conciliatory

H
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 165

proceedings. The second is a Permanent Lok Adalat, established A
under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act in respect of public utility
services, which can carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory
functions, subject to the procedure to be followed under Section
22-C of the LSA Act. The scheme of the LSA Act makes clear
the distinction between the two types of Lok Adalats. Section 20
B
of the LSA Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall aim to arrive at
a compromise or settlement between the parties. If no such
compromise or settlement is arrived at, then the record of the
case is returned to the court from which the Lok Adalat had
received the reference. The court would then proceed to
adjudicate the dispute. On the other hand, Section 22-C of the C
LSA Act provides that a party to a dispute, prior to bringing a
dispute before the court, i.e., at the pre-litigation stage, can make
an application to a Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a
dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalat would first conduct
conciliation proceedings and attempt to reach an amicable
D
settlement of the dispute. However, if the parties fail to reach an
agreement, it shall decide the dispute, as long as the dispute
does not relate to an offence. Section 22-D further indicates that
the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute
between the parties on merits. The powers of the Lok Adalat
constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act are to be E
distinguished from the nature of powers granted to a Permanent
Lok Adalat established under Section 22-B of the LSA Act. It is
in the context of interpreting the jurisdiction of Lok Adalats
constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act, it is held that the
Lok Adalat cannot perform any adjudicatory function in terms of
F
Section 20 of the LSA Act. [Paras 28 and 31][185-E-H; 186-A-B;
188-D-E]
1.5 The Single Judge of the High Court observed that the
Permanent Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory function. This finding
of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High
Court in its impugned judgement where it observed that the G
Permanent Lok Adalat cannot act as a regular civil court in
adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Based on the
analysis of the LSA Act and precedents of this Court, such an
understanding is clearly incorrect. Therefore, these observations
H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court were
incorrect. At the same time, the Division Bench in its impugned
judgement also noted that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to
follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in the instant case.
This observation is correct since the award of the Permanent
Lok Adalat does not indicate any attempt made by it to propose
B
terms of settlement to the parties and their rejection. It states
that once the respondent and his guarantor did not appear, it
adjudicated the dispute on merits in favour of the respondent.
For the reasons mentioned earlier in this judgment, the
Permanent Lok Adalat could not have done so. Therefore, the
C final judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the award of
the Permanent Lok Adalat is upheld. The observations of the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment in respect of the
adjudicatory powers of the Permanent Lok Adalats were incorrect,
while upholding its ultimate conclusion since the Permanent Lok
Adalat failed to follow the mandatory conciliation proceedings in
D
the instant case. [Para 32, 33 & 34][188-F-G; 189-A-D]
Bar Council of India v. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC
243 : [2012] 6 SCR 1094; United India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 454 : [2008] 8
SCR 509; Inter Globe Aviation v. N Satchidanand (2011)
E
7 SCC 463 : [2011] 6 SCR 1116; Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Suresh Kumar (2011) 7 SCC
491; State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2
SCC 660 : [2008] 1 SCR 922; Estate Officer v. Colonel
HV Mankotia (2021) SCC OnLine SC 898; New Okhla
F Industrial Development Authority v. Yunus and Ors.
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 138 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 6 SCR 1094 referred to Para 8(i)
G [2008] 8 SCR 509 referred to Para 29
[2011] 6 SCR 1116 referred to Para 29
(2011) 7 SCC 491 referred to Para 31
[2008] 1 SCR 922 referred to Para 31
H
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 167

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3872 A
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2020 (GM-RES).
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, Sachin
Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. B

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis.
They are: C
A Introduction ........................................................................ 3*
B Submissions of Counsel ..................................................... 6*
C Analysis .............................................................................. 8*
C.1 Legislative Framework of Legal Services Act 1987 ... 8* D

C.2 Mandatory nature of conciliation proceedings .......... 22*
C.3 Whether Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory
functions ........................................................................... 25*
E
D Conclusion ........................................................................ 29*
A Introduction
1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 6 March 2021 of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The Single Judge by a
judgment dated 3 July 2019 allowed the writ petition1 instituted by the F
respondent, and set aside an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated
19 November 2014. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal2 by
the appellant and upheld the judgment of the Single Judge.
2. The dispute arises from an application3 filed by the Syndicate
4
Bank on 31 December 2012 before the Permanent Lok Adalat at G
*
Denotes the pagination in the original judgment.
1
Writ Petition No 27778 of 2019 (GM-RES)
2
Writ Appeal No 514 of 2020 (GM-RES)
3
PLD No 69 of 2013
4
With effect from 1 April 2020, it has since been merged with the appellant through a
notification dated 4 March 2020 issued by the Central Government in consultation
with Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its powers under Section 9 of Banking
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A Mangalore under Section 22-C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act
19875. The application had been filed against the respondent and his
guarantor, in regard to credit facilities in the value of Rs 2,40,583 availed
by the respondent from the appellant. The appellant alleged that the
amount of Rs 2,40,583 along with interest had become due on 1 October
2012, but the respondent had not repaid it, in spite of multiple notices and
B
requests. Hence, the appellant prayed for the recovery of Rs 2,40,583
with interest at the rate of 15.75 per cent and costs from the respondent
and his guarantor.
3. Notice was issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the
respondent on 10 January 2013, which was allegedly not claimed by the
C respondent. Hence, on 12 March 2013, the Permanent Lok Adalat held
the service to be complete in respect of the respondent and adjourned
the case to 6 June 2013 for reporting of settlement. Thereafter, allegedly
on 22 August 2013, a counsel filed a memo of appearance on behalf of
the respondent and matter was adjourned to allow filing of vakalatnama
D and objections on behalf of the respondent. On 6 February 2014, another
counsel is alleged to have filed a vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent,
and the case was adjourned once again.
4. Since no one thereafter participated in the proceedings on behalf
of the respondent, the appellant filed its final affidavit on 17 November
E 2014, when the Permanent Lok Adalat reserved the matter for its award.
In its award dated 19 November 2014, the Permanent Lok Adalat noted
that the respondent “appeared through an advocate, but did not
participate in the proceedings” while his guarantor “though served
with notices…did not participate in the proceedings”. Further, it also
noted that no conciliation was reported. Hence, the Permanent Lok Adalat
F allowed the application filed by the appellant based on the documentary
evidence adduced by them and directed the respondent and his guarantor
to pay the appellant an amount of Rs 2,40,583 with interest at the rate of
9 per cent till the date of realization. The appellant filed a petition6 for
execution of the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat before the Civil
G Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada.

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970. Hence, it is also referred
to as “appellant” in this judgment.
5
“LSA Act”
6
H Ex No 9 of 2019
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 169
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

5. While the appellant’s execution petition was pending and upon A
the issuance of an arrest notice, the respondent filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court on
1 July 2019, for challenging the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat
dated 19 November 2014. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by
a judgment dated 3 July 2019, without issuing notice to the appellant.
B
While setting aside award dated 19 November 2014, the Single Judge
held:
“6. In view of the fact that the Lok Adalath (sic) has no adjudicatory
function as per the [Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987], the
impugned order dated 19.11.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside.
C
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the
respondent to take recourse to such remedy as may be available
to them under the law.”
6. Relying upon the judgment of the Single Judge of Karnataka
High Court dated 3 July 2019, the appellant’s execution petition was D
dismissed on 22 July 2019. The appellant alleges that this is when they
became aware of the Single Judge’s judgment, and thereafter filed a
writ appeal.
7. By its impugned judgment dated 6 March 2021, the Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ appeal. While E
dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench held:
“9. The aforesaid provisions make it clear that in case the parties
reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute they shall
sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat
shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the F
same to each of the parties concerned at the first instance and it
is only after where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under
sub-Section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat can pass an award
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. In the
present case, no such procedure was followed at all. There was
no conciliation proceedings between the parties. As they did not G
appear, the question of signing the agreement does not arise. The
Lok Adalat could not have acted as a regular civil Court in
adjudicating the proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
was justified in allowing the writ petition. This Court finds no reason
to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.”
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A Thus, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal on two grounds:
first, that the procedure for conciliation under Section 22-C of the LSA
Act was not followed, and hence, the award under Section 22-C(8) was
a nullity; and second, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have acted
as a regular civil court in adjudicating the proceedings.
B B Submissions of Counsel
8. Mr Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has made the following submissions:
(i) The impugned judgement is contrary to the provisions
contained in Chapter – VI-A of the LSA Act and the
C decision of this Court in Bar Council of India v. Union of
India7 in as much as the High Court held that Permanent
Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory function;
(ii) Sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent to
participate in the conciliation proceedings;
D
(iii) If the parties fail to participate in the conciliation
proceedings, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no option but
to proceed to decide the dispute and pass an award under
Section 22-C of the LSA Act;
(iv) Under Section 22-E of the LSA Act, an award passed by
E
the Permanent Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a
civil court and such award is final and cannot be called into
question in any original suit, application or execution
proceedings;
(v) The object and purpose behind introducing Chapter VI-A
F
to the LSA Act would be frustrated if the Permanent Lok
Adalat is denied the power of adjudicating a dispute if a
party deliberately avoids appearing and participating in the
conciliation proceedings, even after receipt of notice from
the Permanent Lok Adalat and after having appeared
G through an advocate on a previous occasion; and
(vi) The conclusion of the conciliation proceedings is not a
condition precedent to the exercise of Permanent Lok

7
H (2012) 8 SCC 243 (“Bar Council of India”)
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 171
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Adalat’s adjudicatory function if a party fails to appear for A
the conciliation proceedings.
9. Notice was served upon the respondent by the usual mode of
service as well as Dasti. While an AD card duly signed by the respondent
was received by the Supreme Court’s Registry, no one entered an
appearance on behalf of the respondent. B
C Analysis
10. Two issues arise in the present appeal:
(i) Whether under Section 22-C of the LSA Act conciliation
proceedings are mandatory; and
(ii) Whether the Permanent Lok Adalats have adjudicatory C
functions under the LSA Act.
C.1 Legislative Framework of Legal Services Act 1987
11. To address these issues, it is important to understand the
statutory framework of the LSA Act. Chapter VI of the LSA Act is
titled “Lok Adalats”. Section 198 provides the framework on the basis of D
8
“19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every State Authority or District Authority
or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services
Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok
Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such
areas as it thinks fit.
(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of— E
(a) serving or retired judicial officers; and
(b) other persons,
of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee,
or, as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat.
(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee F
shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the
Chief Justice of India.
(4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may
be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court.
(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or G
settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of—
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before,
any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter
relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.”
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A which Lok Adalats are to be organised. Specifically, Section 19(5)
provides that Lok Adalats shall have the jurisdiction to arrive at a
compromise and settlement between the parties in respect of a matter:
(i) pending before a court for which the Lok Adalat is organised; or (ii)
not pending before a court for which the Lok Adalat is organised but
falling within its jurisdiction. The proviso notes that the Lok Adalat shall
B
have no jurisdiction in respect of a matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law.
12. Section 209 outlines the type of cases whose cognisance can
be taken by the Lok Adalats. Section 20(1) provides that when a case is
9
“20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.—(1) Where in any case referred to in
C
clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19,
(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court,
for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court if prima facie
satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or
(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of
D by the Lok Adalat,
the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause
(i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19
E may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to
in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by
a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the other party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference
has been made to it under sub-section (2) the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the
F case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act
with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and
shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or
settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be
returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-
G
section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.
(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or
settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section
(2), that Lok Adalat shall advise the parties to seek remedy in a court.
(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such
court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such
H reference under sub-section (1).”
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 173
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

pending before a court (in accordance with Section 19(5)(i)), the court A
can refer the case to a Lok Adalat for settlement if: (i) the parties agree;
(ii) one party makes an application; or (iii) the court is satisfied that the
matter is appropriate for a Lok Adalat. The proviso stipulates that in
scenario (ii) and (iii), the court shall only make its decision after giving
the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 20(2) provides
B
that when an Authority or a Committee organising a Lok Adalat receives
an application (in accordance with Section 19(5)(ii)), it shall determine
whether to refer it to the Lok Adalat. The proviso stipulates that it shall
only make its determination after giving parties a reasonable opportunity
of being heard. Section 20(3) indicates that when a case is referred to a
Lok Adalat under Section 20(1) and (2), it shall proceed to dispose of the C
case and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.
Section 20(4) provides that in disposing of a case, the Lok Adalat shall
be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal
principles. In case the Lok Adalat is unable to reach a settlement between
the parties and no award is made, it shall: (i) return the case to the court
D
if it was received under Section 20(1) (in accordance with Section 20(5)),
which shall resume hearing it from the stage where it was referred to
the Lok Adalat (in accordance with Section 20(7)); or (ii) advise the
parties to approach the court if it was received under Section 20(2) (in
accordance with Section 20(6)).
13. Section 2110 stipulates that the awards of Lok Adalats shall be E
deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order
of any other court. These awards shall be final and binding on all the
parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the
award. Further, when a settlement is arrived at by a Lok Adalat in a
case referred to it under Section 20(1), the parties shall be refunded F
their court fee.
14. Section 22 outlines the powers of the Lok Adalats and
Permanent Lok Adalats. Section 22 is extracted below:

10
“21. Award of Lok Adalat.—(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be
G
a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a
compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it
under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in
the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the
dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.” H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A “22. Powers of Lok Adalats.—(1) The Lok Adalat or Permanent
Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination
under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil
court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while
trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—
B (a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness
and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

C (d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of
such record or document from any court or office; and
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in
sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall
D have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the
determination of any dispute coming before it.
(3) All proceedings before the Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat
shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of
Sections, 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
E and every Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a civil court for the
purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”
Sub-Section (1) of Section 22 stipulates that Lok Adalats and
Permanent Lok Adalats shall have the same power as civil courts under
F the Civil Procedure Code 190811 for making their determination under
the LSA Act. Sub-Section (2), without prejudice to sub-Section (1),
provides the Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats with the power to
specify their own procedure. Sub-Section (3) states that proceedings
before the Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats shall be deemed to
be judicial proceedings.
G
15. These provisions demonstrate that the power of the Lok Adalat
is limited, even though it may have some powers of the civil courts and
the proceedings before it have some trappings of a judicial proceeding.
A Lok Adalat shall only attempt to reach a compromise or settlement
11
“CPC”
H
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 175
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

between the parties whose case is before it. If a compromise or settlement A
is reached, the Lok Adalat shall issue it as its award, and the statute
deems it to be equivalent to the decree of a court, against which no
appeal shall lie. On the other hand, if it fails to reach a compromise or
settlement, the Lok Adalat shall return the case to the court or advise
the parties to approach the court.
B
16. On the other hand, Permanent Lok Adalats are constituted
under Chapter VI-A of the LSA Act titled “Pre-Litigation Conciliation
and Settlement”. The chapter was added to the LSA Act by The Legal
Services Authorities (Amendment) Act 200212. It is necessary to analyse
the rationale for introducing such an institutional mechanism for resolving
disputes when Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act C
were already in existence. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the LSA Amendment Act reads as follows:
“(1) The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to
constitute legal services authorities for providing (sic) and
competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to D
ensure that opportunities for securing justice were not denied to
any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to
organise Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal
system promoted justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The system
of Lok Adalat, which is an innovative mechanism for alternate E
dispute resolution, has proved effective for resolving disputes in a
spirit of conciliation outside the courts.
(2) However, the major drawback in the existing scheme
of organisation of the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the
said Act is that the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based F
on compromise or settlement between the parties. If the
parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement, the
case is either returned to the court of law or the parties are
advised to seek remedy in a court of law. This causes
unnecessary delay in the dispensation of justice. If Lok
Adalats are given power to decide the cases on merits in G
case parties fail to arrive at any compromise or settlement,
this problem can be tackled to a great extent. Further, the
cases which arise in relation to public utility services such as

12
Act 37 of 2002 (“LSA Amendment Act”) H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Vidyut Board, etc.
need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay
even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which
ought not to go in the regular courts would be settled at the pre-
litigation stage itself which would result in reducing the workload
of the regular courts to a great extent. It is, therefore, proposed
B
to amend the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to set
up Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre-
litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases
relating to public utility services.”
(emphasis supplied)
C
The Statement of Objects and Reasons indicates that Chapter
VI-A was introduced to the LSA Act to primarily create alternative
dispute resolution bodies, in the form of Permanent Lok Adalats, to decide
disputes on merits if the parties fail to arrive at a compromise or settlement.

D 17. Section 22-B of the LSA Act provides for the establishment
of Permanent Lok Adalats. Section 22-B stipulates thus:
“22-B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.—(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19, the Central
Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by
E notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and
for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public
utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the
notification.
(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified
F under sub-section (1) shall consist of—
(a) a person who is, or has been, a district Judge or additional
district Judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of
a district Judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok
Adalat; and
G (b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility
service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the
case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of
the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority,
appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the
H State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 177
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman A
and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may
be prescribed by the Central Government.”
Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-B stipulates that the Central or State
Authority under the LSA Act shall establish Permanent Lok Adalats in
respect of one or more public utility services (defined under Section 22- B
A(b)13) and for specific areas. Sub-Section (2) provides the membership
of the Permanent Lok Adalat to be appointed by the Central or State
Authority, which shall include: (i) its Chairperson, who is a person who
is, or has been, a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or has
held judicial office higher in rank than that of a District Judge; and (ii)
two other persons who have adequate experience in the public utility C
services, to be nominated by Central or State Government on the
recommendation of Central or State Authority, as the case maybe.
18. Section 22-C of the LSA Act stipulates the instances in which
Permanent Lok Adalats can take cognisance of cases. Section 22-C
provides as follows: D

“22-C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.—
(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before
any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for
the settlement of dispute:
E
Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction
in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable
under any law:

F
13
“22-A. Definitions.—In this Chapter and for the purposes of Sections 22 and 23,
unless the context otherwise requires,—
[…]
(b) “public utility service” means any—
(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or
(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or
(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or
G
(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or
(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or
(vi) insurance service,
and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as
the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public
utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.” H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not
have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in
dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:
Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification,
increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso
B in consultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the
Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke
jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.
(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat
C under sub-section (1), it—
(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a
written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute
under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds
relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as
D the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement
with any document and other evidence which such party deems
appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a
copy of such statement together with a copy of such document
and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;
E (b) may require any party to the application to file additional
statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
(c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it
from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such
other party to present reply thereto.
F
(4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have
been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent
Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the
parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate
taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.
G (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation
proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt
to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent
and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate
H in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 179
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction A
of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other
related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation
proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement
in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it B
may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute
and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in
case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the
dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent
Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a
copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. C

(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-
section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does
not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.”
Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-C provides that any party to a dispute D
(covered under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in accordance
with Section 22-B) can approach the Permanent Lok Adalat before
approaching a court. The proviso notes two exceptions to this: (i) the
dispute shall not be in respect of any matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law; and (ii) the value of the property in dispute
shall not exceed Rs 10 lakhs. However, the third proviso stipulates that E
the Central Government may, in consultation with the Central Authority,
increase this amount through a notification. Indeed, by a notification
dated 20 March 201514 this amount has been since raised to Rs 1 crore.
Under sub-Section (2), once an application is made to the Permanent
Lok Adalat under sub-Section (1) in respect of a dispute, no court shall F
have jurisdiction over it. In accordance with sub-Section (3), once the
Permanent Lok Adalat receives an application under sub-Section (1), it
14
“Noti. No. S.O. 803(E), dated March 20, 2015.—In exercise of the powers conferred
by the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of
Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs), Notification Number S.O. 2083(E),
G
dated the 15th September, 2011, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part
II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 15th September, 2011, the Central Government,
in consultation with the Central Authority, hereby increases the limit of the value of the
property in dispute for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok
Adalat to “one crore rupees” with effect from the date of publication of this notification
in the Official Gazette.” H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A can direct both parties to file detailed submission outlining their factual
submissions, issues raised and arguments advanced. To support their
submissions, the parties will be permitted to attach documentary
evidence. Further, the Permanent Lok Adalat can direct the parties to
file additional submissions. It shall also communicate any submissions or
documents received by one party to the other, in order to enable them to
B
respond. Once the procedure under sub-Section (3) is completed, the
Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-Section (4), shall conduct
conciliation proceedings between parties in a manner it sees fit keeping
in mind the nature of the dispute. During the conciliation proceedings
under sub-Section (4), sub-Section (5) imposes a duty on the Permanent
C Lok Adalat to assist the parties in reaching an amicable resolution to
their dispute in an independent and impartial manner. On the other hand,
sub-Section (6) imposes a duty on the parties to cooperate with the
Permanent Lok Adalat in good faith and produce any evidence/documents
required for the resolution of the dispute. Sub-Section (7) empowers the
Permanent Lok Adalat, when it is of the opinion that a settlement exists
D
between the parties, to formulate the terms of such settlement and present
it to the parties. If the parties are agreeable to the terms of the settlement,
the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award incorporating those terms
and provide a copy to each party. Finally, if the parties fail to reach an
agreement under sub-Section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide
E the dispute on merits under sub-Section (8), if the dispute does not relate
to any offence.
19. Section 22-D15 stipulates that while conducting conciliation
proceedings or deciding the dispute on its merits, the Permanent Lok
Adalat shall “be guided by the principles of natural justice,
F objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice” and
shall not be bound by the CPC and the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
20. Section 22-E relates to the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat,
and provides that:
“22-E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.—(1) Every
G award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either
15
“22-D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.—The Permanent Lok Adalat shall,
while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act,
be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other
principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
H 1908) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).”
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 181
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and A
binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under
them.
(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act
shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.
(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act B
shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent
Lok Adalat.
(4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this
Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original
suit, application or execution proceeding. C

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by
it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall
execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court.”
Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-E stipulates that the award of the D
Permanent Lok Adalat, whether arising out of a settlement agreement
or after deciding the merits of the dispute, shall be final and binding on all
parties and any persons claiming under them. Sub-Section (2) provides
that the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a
decree of a civil court. Sub-Section (3) provides that every award of the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall be decided by a majority of its constituent E
members. Sub-Section (4) reiterates that the award shall be final and
shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution
proceeding. Finally, sub-Section (5) stipulates that the Permanent Lok
Adalat may transmit an award made by it to a civil court having local
jurisdiction, and such civil court shall execute the order as if it were a F
decree made by that court.
21. The above survey of the provisions of the LSA Act indicates
that there are similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok
Adalats: (i) they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties
before them, and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement
G
agreed upon by the parties (Section 20(3) and 22-C(7)); (ii) in doing do,
they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other
legal principles (Section 20(4) and 22-D); and (iii) their awards, deemed
to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an
appeal (Section 21 and 22-E). Yet, despite these similarities, there are
crucial differences under the statute. H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A 22. While the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat is limited
to disputes regarding public utility services, crucially, its powers are wider
than the Lok Adalat in many respects:
(i) Parties can approach Permanent Lok Adalats directly under
Section 22-C(1), while Lok Adalats are sent their cases by
B courts where the dispute is pending (under Section 20(1))
or by the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat
under Section 19(1) after they receive it from the parties
(under Section 20(2)). Indeed, an application made to the
Permanent Lok Adalat ousts the jurisdiction of a civil court
(under Section 22-C(2));
C
(ii) Permanent Lok Adalats can direct the parties to submit
written submissions, replies, evidence and documents
(Section 22-C(3));
(iii) Other then attempting conciliation with parties, the
D Permanent Lok Adalats can also decide a dispute on its
merits if the settlement fails (Section-C(7)); and
(iv) Permanent Lok Adalats can transmit an award made to a
civil court having local jurisdiction, and such civil court shall
execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court
E (Section 22-E(5)).
The entrustment of wider powers to the Permanent Lok Adalat is
supported by its membership, comprising of a District Judge or Additional
District Judge or someone who has held judicial office higher in rank
than that of a District Judge (as compared to only judicial officers in Lok
F Adalats).
C.2 Mandatory nature of conciliation proceedings
23. We must now address the first issue, i.e., whether the
conciliation proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalats are
mandatory before it can decide a dispute on its merits.
G 24. This issue is clearly resolved from a bare reading of Section
22-C. Section 22-C provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is
to proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing
of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts, in
accordance with sub-Sections (1) and (2). The second step is the parties
H filing requisite submissions and documents before the Permanent Lok
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 183
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Adalat, in accordance with sub-Section (3). On the completion of the A
third step to its satisfaction, the Permanent Lok Adalat can move to the
fourth step of attempting conciliation between the parties, in accordance
with sub-Sections (4), (5) and (6). Subsequently, in the fifth step in
accordance with sub-Section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw
up terms of settlement on the basis of the conciliation proceedings, and
B
propose them to the parties. If the parties agree, the Permanent Lok
Adalat has to pass an award on the basis of the agreed upon terms of
settlement. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth
step, can the Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide
the dispute on its merits.
25. Such an interpretation is also supported by the decision of a C
two-Judge Bench of this Court in Bar Council of India (supra), where
the constitutionality of Chapter VI-A of the LSA Act was upheld.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice R M Lodha highlighted that the Permanent
Lok Adalats would proceed to adjudication of a dispute on its merits
only after attempting and failing to generate a settlement between the D
parties:
“22. Chapter VI-A inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act in the
1987 Act, as its title suggests, provides for pre-litigation conciliation
and settlement procedure…The disputes in relation to public
utility service need urgent attention with focus on their E
resolution at the threshold by conciliation and settlement
and if for any reason such effort fails, then to have such disputes
adjudicated through an appropriate mechanism as early as may
be possible…
23. The Statement of Objects and Reasons itself spells out the F
salient features of Chapter VI-A. By bringing in this law, the
litigation concerning public utility service is sought to be
nipped in the bud by first affording the parties to such
dispute an opportunity to settle their dispute through the
endeavours of the Permanent Lok Adalat and if such effort
fails then to have the dispute between the parties adjudicated G
through the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat…
[…]
26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating
to public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A Lok Adalats only if the process of conciliation and
settlement fails. The emphasis is on settlement in respect
of disputes concerning public utility services through the
medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason that
sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms
that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before
B
any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for
settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between
the parties in matters of public utility services is the main
theme. However, where despite the endeavours and efforts of
the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement between the parties is
C not through and the parties are required to have their dispute
determined and adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of
disputes relating to public utility services, Parliament has intervened
and conferred power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok
Adalat.”
D (emphasis supplied)
26. The appellant’s argument, however, is that if the opposite party
does not appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it can dispense with
the conciliation proceedings and straightaway adjudicate the dispute under
Section 22-C(8). We are unable to accept this submission. Even if the
E opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound
to follow the step-by-step procedure laid down by Section 22-C. Under
Section 22-C(3), it would require the party before it to file their
submissions and documents, and make the best efforts to communicate
them to the opposite party for their response. If it is satisfied that no
response is forthcoming from the absent opposite party, the Permanent
F Lok Adalat shall still attempt to settle the dispute through settlement
under Section 22-C(4). It is important to remember that Section 22-C(5)
imposes a duty upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to be independent and
impartial in attempting to amicably settle the dispute, while Section 22-
C(6) imposes a duty upon the party present before the Permanent Lok
G Adalat to cooperate in good faith and assist the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat, based on the materials before it,
shall propose terms of settlement and communicate them to both parties,
regardless of whether they participated in the proceedings. If the party
present before the Permanent Lok Adalat does not agree or if the absent
party does not respond in a sufficient period of time, only then can the
H
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 185
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Permanent Lok Adalat adjudicate the dispute on its merits under Section A
22-C(8). Keeping in mind the principles enshrined in Section 22-D, the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall once again notify the absent party of its
decision to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, in case it wishes to join
the proceedings at that stage.
27. Section 22-C(8) is amply clear that it only comes into effect B
once an agreement under Section 22-C(7) has failed. The corollary of
this is that the proposed terms of settlement under Section 22-C(7), and
the conciliation proceedings preceding it, are mandatory. If Permanent
Lok Adalats are allowed to bypass this step just because a party is absent,
it would be tantamount to deciding disputes on their merit ex parte and
issuing awards which will be final, binding and will be deemed to be C
decrees of civil courts. This was simply not the intention of the Parliament
when it introduced the LSA Amendment Act. Its main goal was still the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities, with a
decision on merits always being the last resort. Therefore, we hold that
conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA Act are D
mandatory in nature.
C.3 Whether Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory
functions
28. The second issue which is in contention before this Court is
whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has any adjudicatory function. As E
highlighted in the Objects and Reasons accompanying the LSA
Amendment Act, its introduction led to the creation of two different
types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section
19 of the LSA Act, having no adjudicatory power, which can only conduct
conciliatory proceedings. The second is a Permanent Lok Adalat, F
established under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act in respect of public
utility services, which can carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory
functions, subject to the procedure to be followed under Section 22-C of
the LSA Act. The scheme of the LSA Act makes clear the distinction
between the two types of Lok Adalats. Section 20 of the LSA Act provides
that the Lok Adalat shall aim to arrive at a compromise or settlement G
between the parties. If no such compromise or settlement is arrived at,
then the record of the case is returned to the court from which the Lok
Adalat had received the reference. The court would then proceed to
adjudicate the dispute. On the other hand, Section 22-C of the LSA Act
provides that a party to a dispute, prior to bringing a dispute before the H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A court, i.e., at the pre-litigation stage, can make an application to a
Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a dispute. The Permanent
Lok Adalat would first conduct conciliation proceedings and attempt to
reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. However, if the parties fail
to reach an agreement, it shall decide the dispute, as long as the dispute
does not relate to an offence. Section 22-D further indicates that the
B
Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute between the
parties on merits.
29. In United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha &
16
Ors. , this Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat performs an
adjudicatory role if the conciliation between the parties fails. Elucidating
C on the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat, this Court observed as
follows:
“25. Chapter VI-A stands independently. Whereas the heading of
the Chapter talks of pre-litigation, conciliation and settlement,
Section 22-C(8) of the Act speaks of determination. It creates
D another adjudicatory authority, the decision of which by a legal
fiction would be a decision of a civil court. It has the right to
decide a case. The term “decide” means to determine; to form a
definite opinion; to render judgment. (See Advanced Law Lexicon,
3rd Edn., 2005 at p. 1253.) Any award made by the Permanent
E Lok Adalat is executable as a decree. No appeal thereagainst
shall lie. The decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and
binding on the parties. Whereas on the one hand, keeping in view
the parliamentary intent, settlement of all disputes through
negotiation, conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat and judicial
settlement are required to be encouraged, it is equally well settled
F that where the jurisdiction of a court is sought to be taken away,
the statutory provisions deserve strict construction. A balance is
thus required to be struck. A court of law can be created under a
statute. It must have the requisite infrastructure therefor.
Independence and impartiality of Tribunal being a part of human
G right is required to be taken into consideration for construction of
such a provision. When a court is created, the incumbents must
be eligible to determine the lis.
[…]

16
H (2008) 7 SCC 454
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 187
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

…the Permanent Lok Adalat does not simply adopt the role of an A
arbitrator whose award could be the subject-matter of challenge
but also the role of an adjudicator. Parliament has given the
authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It
has an adjudicating role to play.”
Likewise, in Inter Globe Aviation v. N Satchidanand17, this B
Court observed that the Permanent Lok Adalat’s role mutates from that
of a conciliatory body to an adjudicatory body, if the parties fail to reach
an agreement, where it can decide the dispute between the parties.
30. In Bar Council of India (supra), this Court held that the
power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate disputes at a pre- C
litigation stage in terms of Section 22-C(8) is constitutional. This Court
observed thus:
“26. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to
public utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats
only if the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The D
emphasis is on settlement in respect of disputes concerning public
utility services through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It
is for this reason that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no
unambiguous terms that any party to a dispute may before the
dispute is brought before any court make an application to the
Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement E
of dispute between the parties in matters of public utility services
is the main theme. However, where despite the endeavours
and efforts of the Permanent Lok Adalat the settlement
between the parties is not through and the parties are
required to have their dispute determined and adjudicated, F
to avoid delay in adjudication of disputes relating to public
utility services, Parliament has intervened and conferred
power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat.
27. Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning G
public utility service up to a specific pecuniary limit, if they
do not relate to any offence, as provided under Section 22-
C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational? We think
not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to
17
(2011) 7 SCC 463, paragraph 27 H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.

A adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a
tribunal may not necessarily have all the trappings of the
court. What is essential is that it must be a creature of
statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the
parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them
consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice.
B
It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the
dispute adjudicated by means of a court only. Chapter VI-A
has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through
the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of
disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is
C brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any
settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate
such dispute if it does not relate to any offence.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. We reiterate that the powers of the Lok Adalat constituted
D under Section 19 of the LSA Act are to be distinguished from the nature
of powers granted to a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section
22-B of the LSA Act. It is in the context of interpreting the jurisdiction of
Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act, that this Court
has held that the Lok Adalat cannot perform any adjudicatory function
E in terms of Section 20 of the LSA Act18.
D Conclusion
32. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the order
dated 3 July 2019 observed that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no
adjudicatory function. This finding of the Single Judge was upheld by the
F Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in its impugned judgement
dated 6 March 2021 where it observed that the Permanent Lok Adalat
cannot act as a regular civil court in adjudicating the dispute between
the parties. Based on our analysis of the LSA Act and precedents of this
Court, such an understanding is clearly incorrect. Therefore, we hold
G that these observations of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court were incorrect.

18
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Suresh Kumar (2011) 7 SCC 491; State
of Punjab v. Jalour Singh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 660; Estate Officer v. Colonel HV
Mankotia (2021) SCC OnLine SC 898; and New Okhla Industrial Development
H Authority v. Yunus and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 138
CANARA BANK v. G S JAYARAMA 189
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

33. At the same time, the Division Bench in its impugned judgement A
also noted that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory
conciliation proceedings in the present case. This observation is correct
since the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat does not indicate any
attempt made by it to propose terms of settlement to the parties and
their rejection. It states that once the respondent and his guarantor did
B
not appear, it adjudicated the dispute on merits in favour of the respondent.
For the reasons mentioned earlier in this judgment, the Permanent Lok
Adalat could not have done so. Therefore, on this point only, we uphold
the final judgment of the Division Bench setting aside the award dated
19 November 2014 of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
34. Consequently, we hold that the observations of the Division C
Bench in the impugned judgment in respect of the adjudicatory powers
of the Permanent Lok Adalats were incorrect, while upholding its ultimate
conclusion since the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the mandatory
conciliation proceedings in the present case. We make it clear that we
have not made any observations on the merits of the dispute between D
the parties, and all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
35. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
36. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
E

Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of.
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

F

G

H