Chilakabathini Meramma, v. State Of Telangana, Rep By Its Principal Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI WRIT PETITION No.2620 of 2017 ORDER: (per SK, J) The petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Lok Adalat in PLC.No.62 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee and VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad, and O.S.No.27 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. The Award reflects that the petitioner herein was the defendant in O.S.No.27 of 2012 and the petitioner in PLC.No.62 of 2014. All the parties were present before the Lok Adalat and having recorded their presence, the details of the cases were also adverted to in the Award. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- without interest to Smt. Kothapalli Priscilla in PLC.No.62 of 2014 within a timeframe.

Similarly, being the defendant in O.S.No.27 of 2012 which was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,56,161/-, she agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- without interest to Pallakonda Ravinder, the plaintiff, within a timeframe. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that she presented herself before the Lok Adalat and signed the aforestated Award.

SK, J & NBY, J W.P.No.2620 of 2017 Heard Smt. A. Chandana, learned counsel representing Sri N. Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for Smt. Kothapalli Priscilla and Sri Pallakonda Ravinder, the third and fourth respondents herein.

Smt. A. Chandana, learned counsel, would contend that the Award is liable to be set aside as it is not in consonance with Regulation 17(2) of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. This provision reads as under: "When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (See a specimen at appendix-I) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional alanguage used in the local Courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case, viz., case number, name of Court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent register (maintained as provided under regulation 20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature."

Though Smt. A. Chandana, learned counsel, would contend that the absence of the signatures of the learned counsel appearing for the parties would render the Award void, we are not persuaded to agree. The Regulation makes it clear that upon both parties signing or affixing their thumb impressions and the Members of the Lok Adalat countersigning it, the same becomes

SK, J & NBY, J W.P.No.2620 of 2017 the Award. Only by way of abundant caution, when the parties are represented by counsel, it is stated that they should also be required to sign the settlement or Award before the Members of the Lok Adalat affixing their signatures. Failure on the part of the counsel to participate in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat or to sign the Award or settlement does not have the effect of diluting its status as an Award.

Smt. A. Chandana, learned counsel, would further contend that the Award does not contain the terms of settlement or compromise as required under Regulation 17(1) of the aforestated Regulations. We find this contention to be lacking in merit as the Award clearly sets out the terms of compromise which were agreed to by the parties. We therefore see no ground to interfere with the Award which is sought to be challenged. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15th MARCH, 2017.

_______________ N. BALAYOGI, J kvni