Ram Saroop Sharma vs Nagar Palika Parisad

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
1 WP-10858-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10858 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010208742025
RAM SAROOP SHARMA
Versus
NAGAR PALIKA PARISAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Chaturvedi - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for respondents No.2 and 3/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 16305 of 2006
CNR No.: MPHC010438392006
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD BEGUMGANJ
Versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prabhanshu Chaturvedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
Since the controversy involved in both these petitions is interrelated
and both the petitions are listed together for consideration, therefore they are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
2 WP-10858-2025
being decided by this common order.

2. W.P. No.10858/2025 has been filed assailing the order dated
14/12/2024 passed by Lok Adalat in M.C.C. No.3652/2024, whereby MCC
filed by respondent No.1 was allowed condoning the delay of 424 days and
Writ Petition No.16305/2006 was restored to its original number for
consideration imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of petitioner Ram
Swaroop Sharma were terminated vide order dated 12/08/2004 which was
assailed by him by filing an Appeal before Additional Collector, Raisen. The
Appeal was allowed on 28/06/2005 directing for reinstatement of the
petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.1 preferred Second Appeal before the
Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal and vide order dated
13/09/2006, the said Second Appeal was dismissed affirming the order
passed by Additional Collector. Being aggrieved by the same, W.P.
No.16305/2006 was preferred before this Court and the said petition
preferred by Nagar Palika Parishad was dismissed for want of prosecution
vide order dated 10/07/2023. Thereafter, MCC for restoration of W.P.
No.16305/2006 was filed with an application for condonation of delay of
424 days. Respondent No.1 made an application i.e. I.A. No.21796/2024 for
listing of the matter before Lok Adalat. When the matter was listed before the
Lok Adalat, without appearance of the petitioner and without his consent, the
order was passed wherein delay of 424 days was condoned and the Writ
Petition was restored to its original number imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-.
4. It is argued that the Lok Adalat was not having any jurisdiction to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
3 WP-10858-2025
pass an order without consent of the petitioner. It is argued that passing of an

order in Lok Adalat, which is impugned order, amounts to passing of a
judicial order, which is beyond the scope of Lok Adalat proceedings. He has
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bhargavi Constructions and Another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam
Reddy and Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480 as well as the judgment
dated 01/02/2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Aizawl Bench in the
case of Smt. Vanlalmawii Vs. Sh. Laltanpuia in RFA No.17 of 2021.
5 . Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has vehemently
opposed the arguments and submitted that the petitioner was well aware of
the listing of the case before the Lok Adalat. Despite service of notice
regarding listing of case before the Lok Adalat, he himself has chosen not to
appear before the Lok Adalat. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of his
non-appearance before the Lok Adalat. The respondent has addressed
arguments before the Lok Adalat and satisfied regarding condonation of
delay and thereafter, the order was passed. Therefore, there is no illegality in
passing the said order. It is argued that in pursuance to the order passed by
the Lok Adalat, the cost amount has been deposited and the Writ Petition has
been restored to its original number for consideration on merits, which is
listed along with this petition. It is further argued that in terms of Section 21
of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, each Award of the Lok Adalat
shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court, therefore, challenging the
decree of the civil court in a Writ Petition will not be an appropriate remedy.
Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
4 WP-10858-2025
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7 . The sole question which comes up for consideration before this
Court is whether the Lok Adalat was having any jurisdiction to pass an order
in absence of consent given by both the parties.
8. In the present case, MCC No.3652/2024 was listed before the Lok
Adalat for consideration on 14/12/2024, wherein following order was
passed:-
"1. Heard on I.A. No. 21796 of 2024, which is an
application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 424 days in filing this restoration
application.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant was unaware about the order dated 10.07.2023,
by which his petition was dismissed, hence the delay of 424
days in filing restoration application is occurred.
3. Considering the reasons assigned in the
application, I.A. No.21796 of 2024 is allowed. Delay of
424 days in filing this restoration application is condoned.
4. Heard on restoration application.
5. This M.C.C. is filed for restoration of W.P.No.16305
of 2006 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide
order dated 10.07.2023.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the reasons stated in the restoration application, the MCC is
allowed with the cost of Rs.2,000/-. That shall be deposited
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
5 WP-10858-2025
in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee,

Jabalpur within a period of 15 days from today. It shall be
conditioned precedent. The case shall be restored to its
original number i.e. W.P.No.16305 of 2006.
7. With the above directions, M.C.C stands disposed
off. "
9 . There was huge delay of 424 days in filing the restoration
application. The argument advanced before this court regarding
maintainability of a writ petition against the Award passed by the Lok Adalat
was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 and
thereafter in the case of Bhargavi Constructions and Another
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"22. The question arose before this Court (three-Judge
Bench) in State of Punjab [State of Punjab v. Jalour
Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 669 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 524 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 535] as
to what is the remedy available to the person aggrieved
of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20
of the Act. In that case, the award was passed by the
Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the appeal
pending before the High Court relating to a claim case
arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act. One party to the
appeal felt aggrieved of the award and, therefore,
questioned its legality and correctness by filing a writ
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition
holding it to be not maintainable. The aggrieved party,
therefore, filed an appeal by way of special leave before
this Court. This Court, after examining the scheme of
the Act allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the
High Court. This Court held that the High Court was
not right in dismissing the writ petition as not
maintainable. It was held that the only remedy available
with the aggrieved person was to challenge the award of
the Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article
226 or/and Article 227 of the Constitution of India in
the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
6 WP-10858-2025
The case was accordingly remanded to the High Court
for deciding the writ petition filed by the aggrieved
person on its merits in accordance with law.
23. This is what their Lordships held in para 12:

“12. It is true that where an award is made by
the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement
arrived at between the parties (which is duly
signed by parties and annexed to the award of
the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding
on the parties to the settlement and becomes
executable as if it is a decree of a civil court,
and no appeal lies against it to any court. If
any party wants to challenge such an award
based on settlement, it can be done only by
filing a petition under Article 226 and/or
Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on
very limited grounds. But where no
compromise or settlement is signed by the
parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does
not refer to any settlement, but directs the
respondent to either make payment if it
agrees to the order, or approach the High
Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it
does not agree, is not an award of the Lok
Adalat. The question of challenging such an
order in a petition under Article 227 does not
arise. As already noticed, in such a situation,
the High Court ought to have heard and
disposed of the appeal on merits.”
24. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down
by this Court is binding on all the courts in the country
by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution.
This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that
challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only
by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article
227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and
that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear
pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the
opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved
person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ
petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging
the award dated 22-8-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It
was then for the writ court to decide as to whether any
ground was made out by the writ petitioners for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
7 WP-10858-2025
quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds
are sufficient for its quashing."
10. From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India which will have binding effect on all the Courts in the
country. It has been held that the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is the only remedy to assail the Award passed by the
Lok Adalat, therefore, the objection taken by the respondent regarding
maintainability of the petition was overruled and the petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India was held to be maintainable. The said aspect
was further considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhargavi
Constructions and Another (supra) as well as by the Gauhati High Court in
the case of Smt. Vanlalmawii (supra).
11. As far as merits of the matter is concerned, the Award passed by
the Lok Adalat does not bear any consent given by the petitioner.
12. Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as
under:-
"20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.— (1)Where
in any case referred to in 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 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 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
8 WP-10858-2025
Committee organising 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 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 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-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 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 stage which was reached before
such reference under sub-section (1)."
13. From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparently clear that there

should be the consent of the parties for listing of the matter before the Lok
Adalat as the proviso clearly provides that no case shall be referred to the
Lok Adalat under the sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court
except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the case can be
disposed of if the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties.
Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act clearly provides that in case no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
9 WP-10858-2025
settlement arrived at between the parties, then the case may be returned back

to the Court for disposal in accordance with law. Sub-section (7) of Section
20 of the Act provides that after return of the case to the competent Court,
the Court shall deal with the matter from the stage which was reached before
such reference was made under sub-section (1).
1 4 . If the aforesaid proposition is applied to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has
not marked his presence before the Lok Adalat despite being served with a
notice. Therefore, it is clear that there was no consent given by the petitioner
for disposal of the case in the Lok Adalat. In absence of any consent given
by the petitioner in the proceedings of the Lok Adalat, delay of 424 days was
condoned and the Writ Petition No.16305/2006 was restored to its original
number for consideration of merits subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The said order amounts to passing a judicial order from the competent Court
and cannot be said to be an Award in terms of Lok Adalat. The Award in the
Lok Adalat proceedings can only be passed with the consent of both the
parties. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was not before the Lok
Adalat.
15. Under these circumstances, the impugned Award passed by the
Lok Adalat is unsustainable. It is hereby set aside. M.C.C. No.3652/2024 is
restored to its original number for reconsideration of merits. The subsequent
order passed in the said MCC will govern the fate of restoration of W.P.
No.16305/2006.
16. As the order passed by the Lok Adalat is recalled and the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87631
10 WP-10858-2025
passed in W.P. No.16305/2006 dated 10/07/2023, whereby the petition was

dismissed for want of prosecution, is revived to the extent of petition being
dismissed for want of prosecution and now as the application for restoration
of W.P. No.16305/2006 is pending adjudication before this Court, therefore
the outcome of said M.C.C. No.3652/2024 will govern the fate of W.P.
No.16305/2006.
17. With aforesaid observations, both the petitions stand disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
14:47:19