MP HC Sets Aside Lok Adalat Order Reviving Municipality’s Challenge to Employee’s Reinstatement Without His Consent, Sends 424-Day Delay Plea for Reconsideration

The petitioner’s termination was set aside by the Additional Collector, and that decision was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner.

Nagar Palika Parishad’s writ petition challenging those decisions was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10 July 2023.

The Parishad later sought restoration, with an application to condone a 424-day delay.

On 14 December 2024, the Lok Adalat condoned the delay and restored the writ petition, subject to costs, although the petitioner was not present and had not consented to settlement.

The petitioner challenged that order in W.P. No. 10858 of 2025; the restoration proceedings were before the Court in the connected W.P. No. 16305 of 2006.

Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 governs references to Lok Adalats and requires them to seek a compromise or settlement; where none is reached, the matter is to be returned to the referring court for disposal in accordance with law.

A Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute on its merits: its award must rest on a settlement between the parties, and absent settlement it cannot pass a judicial order.

Under State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660, and Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480, an aggrieved party may challenge a Lok Adalat award by a petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, on limited grounds.

The Court found that the petitioner’s absence from the Lok Adalat—even though notice had been served—did not amount to consent to settlement.

The Lok Adalat had nevertheless condoned the 424-day delay and restored the writ petition, thereby exercising judicial power rather than recording a consensual settlement.

That exceeded the Lok Adalat’s role under Section 20.

Applying the Supreme Court authorities, the Court also rejected the objection to the maintainability of the challenge.

It restored M.C.C. No. 3652 of 2024 for reconsideration on its merits.

The dismissal of W.P. No. 16305 of 2006 for want of prosecution therefore remained operative pending the outcome of the restoration application, which would govern that writ petition.

Both petitions were disposed of.