Delhi High Court - Orders
Jagdev Singh vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd on 22 September, 2025
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14721/2025
JAGDEV SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Mr. Harish
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Zuhaib Mansoori,
Mr. Lakshay Gola and Mr. Lalit
Kumar, Advs.
Mob: 9811111144
Email: [email protected]
versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh
Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg,
Advs.
Mob: 9999061836
Email: [email protected]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 22.09.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking setting aside of the settlement as well as the order/award of settlement dated 30th May, 2025, and its subsequent order dated 10th June, 2025, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. There is further prayer for amount of Rs. 13,70,500/, being 50% of the assessed amount, be directed to remain with the respondent, till the pendency of the appeal bearing Appeal No. ADM/Elect./07/2023/651, before ADM, North-West, Kanjhawla, Delhi. The petitioner further seeks setting aside of the withdrawal order dated 10th March, 2025, passed by the Court of ADM, Kanjhawla in the said appeal.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 22:02:33
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who submits that the present writ petition would not be maintainable. He relies upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.T. Thomas Versus Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478, and, in particular, relies on Paras 21 to 24 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
21. The Lok Adalat will pass the award with the consent of the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final. Even as under Section 96(3) CPC "no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties". The award of the Lok Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties, and it shall be deemed to be a decree of the civil court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3) CPC.
22. In Punjab National Bank v. Laxmichand Rai [AIR 2000 MP 301] (AIR at p. 304, para 9) the High Court held that:
"This provision of the Act shall prevail in the matter of filing an appeal and an appeal would not lie under the provisions of Section 96 CPC. Lok Adalat is conducted under an independent enactment and once the award is made by a Lok Adalat the right of appeal shall be governed by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act. When it has been specifically barred under provisions of Section 21(2), no appeal can be filed against the award under Section 96 CPC."
The Court further stated that: (AIR pp. 304-05, para 14) "14. It may incidentally be further seen that even the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for an appeal under Section 96(3) against a consent decree. The Code of Civil Procedure also intends that once a consent decree is passed by civil court finality is attached to it. Such finality cannot be permitted to be destroyed, particularly under the Legal Services Authorities Act, as it would amount to defeat the very aim and object of the Act with which it has been enacted. Hence, we hold that the appeal filed is not maintainable."
23. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 22:02:33 Adalat-cum-Secy., District Legal Services Authority [(2000) 5 An LT 577] the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final. On all fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a court in a regular trial is, however, it is as equal and on a par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and be conclusive. Just as the decree passed on compromise cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat, being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any of the regular remedies available under law, including by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and challenging the correctness of the award, on any ground. Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards, especially on the grounds as were raised in the revision petition.
24. The award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending to the litigation among parties.
xxx xxx xxx"
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition would be maintainable. He submits that the petitioner was only made to sign on a form and was not aware of the actual terms of the award/settlement. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bhargavi Constructions & Anr. Versus Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11345 of 2017, and relies upon Paras 27, 37 and 38 of the said judgment, which are reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
27) In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds.
xxx xxx xxx
37) So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 22:02:33 respondents is concerned, it also has no merit. In our view, the decision rendered in the case of State of Punjab (supra) is by the larger Bench (Three Judge) and is, therefore, binding on us. No efforts were made and rightly to contend that the said decision needs reconsideration on the issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid 19 down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (see - M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 2006 ( 8 ) SCC
212). It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case.
38) In the light of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. xxx xxx xxx"
4. However, the aforesaid facts are disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks.
6. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed by the respondent, within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
7. Re-notify on 19th January, 2026.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2025/SK This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 22:02:33