Holding

A High Court judgment that rests on a decision subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court must itself be set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

Summary

The State of Punjab appealed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohinderjit Kaur, who sought family pension from the date of her husband's death. The High Court had relied on the decision in State of Punjab v. Phulan Rani, a case disposed of by a Lok Adalat and later set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that because the precedent relied upon was overruled, the High Court's judgment could not stand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court to be heard afresh in accordance with law. The Court also reiterated the scope of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act concerning matters that may be referred to Lok Adalats.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court judgment that relies on a precedent set aside by the Supreme Court can be sustained.
Whether the writ petition seeking family pension should be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication.
Interpretation of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act regarding the jurisdiction of Lok Adalats.

Legislation cited

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987s. 19, s. 20

Subjects

family pensionwrit petitionLok AdalatLegal Services Authorities ActSection 20Supreme Court precedentHigh Court judgmentappeal

Judgment

)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A
v.
MOHINDERJIT KAUR

JANUARY 18, 2005

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Precedent:
~
High Court-Disposing of a writ petition relying on decision in another
writ petition decided at Lok Ada/at which was subject matter of challenge in c
Supreme Court-Supreme Court setting aside the said decision and directing
the High Court to decide the writ petition-Held, since the decision relied on
by the High Court has been set aside by Supreme Court, impugned judgment
cannot stand-Matter to be decided by High Court afresh in accordance with
law-Practice and Procedure-Lok Ada/at-Cognizance of cases by. D
State Government of Punjab tiled the present appeal challenging the
decision of the High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent,
inter alia, claiming family pension from the date of death of her husband.
The High Court disposed of the matter relying on Phu/an Rani's case,*
disposed of at Lok Ada lat. The Supreme Court set aside the said decision E
indicating as to which matters could be taken up by Lok Adalat for
disposal; it restored the writ petition to its original position and directed
the High Court to dispose of the writ petition.**

Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: I. The High Court has merely relied on Phu/an Rani's case
and held that merely because Phu/an Rani's case* was pending before the
Supreme Court, there was no reason to defer the decision in the writ
petition. Since the decision in Phu/an Rani's case has been set aside**, the
impugned judgment cannot stand. The same is set aside and the matter is
remitted to the High Court for disposal of the matter afresh in accordance G
with law. (580-G-H; 581-A-B(
> •
*State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phu/an Rani and Anr., CWP No. 4708
of (2002) of Punjab and Haryana High Court decided at Lok Ada/at on
577 H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) I S.C.R.

A 26.5.2003, stood overruled in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phu/an Rani and •
Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC 214.

**State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phu/an Rani and Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC
214, relied on.

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 563 of2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.2004 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 15741 of 2003.

Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Appellants.
c R.S. Ahaluwalia, Sanjay Sarin, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa and Ashok
Mathur for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

The respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15741/2003 before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a direction to the present appellants
to allow family pension to her frcim the date of her husband late Shri Joginder
Singh along with interest @18% from the date of accrual till the date of
E realization and other benefits. In support of the claim, respondent placed
reliance on a decision of the High Court in the case of State of Punjab and
Ors. v. Phu/an Rani and Anr., CWP No. 4708/2002 decided on 26.5.2003.
Though it was brought to the notice of the High Court that spedal leave
petition was filed against the High Coun's order dated 26.5.2003, the High
F Court proceeded to dispose of the matter relying on the decision in 1:he earlier
case noted i.e. State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phu/an Rani and Anr. It was held
that the case was squarely covered by the decision in Phu/an Rani's case
(supra).

It is to be noted that the writ petition in Phu/an Rani's case (supra) was
G disposed of at the Lok Adalat and the writ petition to recall the order passed
by the Lok Adalat was rejected and a review application made al:;o met the
same fate. The matter was agitated by the appellant-State before this Court
contending that the writ petition could not have been disposed of at the Lok ....
Ada lat.

H This Court held that the course adopted by the High Court was not
+
STATE v. MOHINDERJIT KAUR [PASA YAT, J.] 579
)
proper. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phu/an Rani and Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC A
214 it was indicated as to which matters can be taken up by the Lok Adalat
for disposal. It was inter alia held as follows:

"The matters which can be taken up by the Lok Adalat for disposal
are enumerated in Section 20 of the Act which reads as follows:-
B
"Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats:-

( I) Where in any case referred to in clause

(i) of sub-section (5) of section 19

(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or
c
(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 is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such
settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to D
be taken cognizance of 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 E
after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for .he time
being in force, the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat
under sub-section ( 1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application
from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of F
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. G

' . (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 case or matter and arrive
at a compromise or settlement between the parties.
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A (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
B 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-section (1) for di:;posal in
accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Ad al at on the ground that
c no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between th1: parties,
in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice
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
D stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section
(!)."

The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes
it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a
compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucial terms in
E sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 are "compromise" and
"settlement". The former expression means settlement of differences
by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of
conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands.
As per Termes de la Ley, "compromise is a mutual promise of two
p or more parties that are at controversy. As per Bouvier it is "an
agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit,
amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree
upon". The word "compromise" implies some element of
accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender."

G

.
ln Phu/an Rani's case (supra) writ petition was restored to it:; original
position and the High Court was requested to dispose of the wrh petition
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.
'
ln the instant case the High Court has merely relied on Phu/an Rani's
case (supra) and held that merely because Phu/an Rani's case (supra) was
H pending before this Court, there was no reason to defer the decision in the
+

STATEv. MOHINDERJITKAUR[PASAYAT,J.] 581
> writ petition filed by the present respondent. A
Since the decision in Phu/an Rani's case (supra) has been set aside, the
natural consequence is that the impugned judgment cannot stand. The same
is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court. It shall hear the
matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appeal is
allowed in the aforesaid tenns with no order as to costs. B
R.P . Appeal allowed.

• • •