“The award passed by the Lok Adalat in a pending litigation, or in a prelitigation case, is not, ordinarily, amenable to judicial review. But when an award of the Lok Adalat is obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or without due compliance with the provisions of the Act and that it was not preceded by a compromise/settlement, it can be challenged in a Writ Petition [Sri Durga Malleswari Educational Society v. District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat), Vijayawada : 2012 (3) ALT 211 (DB)]. The challenge to the award of the Lok Adalat, in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be entertained only at the behest of parties to the settlement/ compromise before the Lok Adalat, and not by anyone else [Sanjay Kumar v. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad : 2010 (3) ALT 289 (DB)]. The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for the award of a Lok Adalat, are entitled to challenge the award. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition, even if such an award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law for necessary redressal, and seek an appropriate decree. As a Civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, there can be no objection for a third party to institute a suit in a Civil Court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him. There may, however, be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties who may have obtained an award of the Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of a third party. In such cases, such a third party may maintain a Writ Petition. In such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of the Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made, and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, the third party should be left to seek the remedy in a Civil Court, rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution [Batchu Subba Lakshmi (1 supra)].
