Permanent Lok Adalats Empowered to Adjudicate Compoundable Traffic Challan Cases Beyond Public Utility Services.

The petitioner filed a writ application concerning the massive pendency of traffic challans and e-challans in the State of Bihar.

The State Government, following court directions, notified the "One Time Traffic Challan Settlement Scheme, 2026" via Notification No. 3261 dated 30.04.2026, which reduced compoundable traffic fines by approximately 50%.

While approximately 36,722 cases were disposed of in a single National Lok Adalat on 09.05.2026, a question arose regarding whether Permanent Lok Adalats could exercise jurisdiction over these cases on a regular basis to further reduce pendency.

1. Whether Permanent Lok Adalats established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, have the jurisdiction to adjudicate compoundable traffic challan cases.

2. Whether the definition of "Public Utility Services" under Section 22-A acts as a bar to Permanent Lok Adalats entertaining traffic offence matters.

Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which defines "public utility services" to include transport services.

Section 22-C, which sets the jurisdictional limits for Permanent Lok Adalats, prohibiting the forum from entertaining matters involving non-compoundable offences or disputes where the value exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs.

The overarching principle of "Access to Justice for All" as envisioned under Section 12 of the Act.

The Court analyzed the statutory limitations of the Legal Services Authorities Act and found that the Member Secretary’s apprehension—that Permanent Lok Adalats are strictly confined to public utility service disputes—was misplaced.

The Court reasoned that since traffic challans involve compoundable offences and the fines involved are significantly below the Rs. 10 lakh threshold prescribed in Section 22-C, there is no express "specific embargo" preventing these forums from taking up such cases.

By applying the principle of "Access to Justice," the Court determined that employing alternate dispute resolution (ADR) fora for traffic matters is necessary to expedite justice and reduce the "huge pendency" of e-challans.

The Court directed that these forums shall henceforth process such matters to alleviate the burden on the judicial system. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, while granting liberty to the intervenor to file a separate PIL regarding the causes of traffic challan pendency.