terms of concurrence of the parties without considering the
probable issues of violation of morals and public policy in
permitting parties to settle on contingent terms which depends
on the decisions of this Court in future. This is grossly
inappropriate and I am of the view that the Lok Adalath
misdirected itself in allowing the parties to enter in to a
settlement which is contra bonos mores and contra public policy.
13. I am of the firm view that the Lok Adalaths have a duty
to ensure that the settlements entered into by the parties confirm
to law, morals and public policy of the Society and the Polity. Any
settlement entered in contravention of these would be completely
unsustainable and incompetent. If this Court notices that the
settlement is one that offers undue advantage to one side on
account of prescription of certain contingencies, it becomes a
case of contravention of public morals as also of public policy
and, therefore, this Court would obtain certain justification in
interfering with such Awards under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, it being null, void and non-est.
14. The unexpendable requirement of Lok Adalats to invest
due care, attention and position while passing awards has already
been spoken to about by a Division Bench of this Court in
Rajagopala Rao v. State Police Chief [2016 (3) KLT 358].
The Bench had formated certain guidelines and are very pertinent
to read. I, therefore, deem it necessary to extract the relevant
paragraph of the said judgment as under:
"18. In order to prevent the menace of passing awards
without due care, attention and precision by Lok Adalats, we
intend to formulate some guidelines. We may hastily add that
they are not exhaustive and may take in other things as well,
depending on the facts of each case. The crucial points to be
borne in mind by the persons presiding over the Lok Adalats and
the lawyers appearing for the parties are thus:
(i) The persons presiding shall thoroughly
study and clearly understand the facts of the
case coming up for settlement.
(ii) They must have a clear understanding
about the legal issues involved in the dispute
between the parties.
(iii) If the parties have engaged lawyers,
they shall also participate in the proceedings
before the Lok Adalat so that a proper
settlement could be arrived at.
(iv) The persons presiding over the Lok
Adalat and the lawyers concerned shall bear in
mind the fundamental principles, under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, essentially required
for executing a legally enforceable agreement.
(v) They shall bear in mind the principles
under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 also, so that the award must
be in the form of an enforceable decree, if the
parties so wish. This is all the more important
because by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section
21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,
every award made by Lok Adalats shall be final
and binding on the parties to the dispute and no
appeal shall lie to any court against the award.
(vi) The persons presiding over the Lok
Adalat shall see that the award passed is clear
in its terms and there shall be no room for any
confusion in respect of the terms and conditions
in the award. They shall take care to see that
on account of ill-drafting of the compromise, no
litigation in future arises in respect of the
matters once settled.
(vii) They shall see that the awards
passed are not only legal, but also conforming
to the norms prescribed for a decree with all the
required details in clear and explicit terms."
15. However, in spite of express declarations by this Court,
it is extremely disheartening and disquieting that lessons are not
being learnt requiring repeated interventions Court.
16. In the case at hand, I see that the absence of a Clause
in Ext.P7 as to what would happen in the event this Court
dismisses Crl.M.C. No.295/2013, would render the settlement
between the parties, as recorded by the Lok Adalath, inoperative
and completely contingent and therefore, contrary to public
morals. Contingent Awards cannot be countenanced, especially
when such contingencies are relating to pending matters before
Courts, especially this Court.
17. The malafides involved in the present stand of the 2nd
respondent would be very apparent because it now asserts that
since Crl.M.C. No.295/2013 has been withdrawn by the
petitioner, it is under no obligation to make payment at all. This
obviously offers an illegal and unlawful advantage to the 2nd
respondent, tilting the balance of the scales of justice capriciously
against the petitioner, merely because Ext.P7 Award had been
allowed to be entered into thoughtlessly by the competent
Authority of the 1st respondent. I cannot permit this to happen
and I, therefore, am of the view that I will be justified in
interfering with Ext.P7 Award and relegating the parties to their
normal channel of litigation, so that substantial justice can be
obtained for both sides.
In such circumstances, I have no hesitation in striking down
and quashing Ext.P7 Award so as to pave way for the
proceedings before the Sub Court, Kollam pending in O.S.
No.381/2013 to be continued and concluded in the manner that
is appropriate in law. I do so.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
7TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
WP(C).No. 35992 of 2015
P.O.THOMAS, S/O. OOMMAN, V KOLLAM TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,
