against the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He has submitted that as per Section 19, atleast two members are required to decide the compromise or settlement between the parties in Lok Adalat but in the present case, it has not been complied and the case has been decided by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar. He has further submitted that under Section 20 of the aforesaid act, one of the parties is required to make an application to the court to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for settlement and if the court is satisfied that there is chance of settlement between the parties, sends the matter to Lok Adalat. In the present case, the trial court without recording any satisfaction, decided the case acting as Lok Adalat. As per Section 20 of the Act aforesaid, the cases can only be referred to Lok Adalat after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the present case, none of the parties made any application. As per Regulation 13 (6) of the National Legal Services Authority Regulation, 2009, Lok Adalat shall not determine reference at its own motion but only on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties before it. As per Regulation 17 aforesaid, the award passed by Lok Adalat has to be verified by all the parties and the Lok Adalat is required to mention about the refund of court fees. If the counsels are not present, the members of Lok Adalat are required to identify the parties and before affixing their photographs are required to verify their signatures. It has been submitted that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the
