Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21561 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7840 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sandeep Gupta Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Singh,Ramdhan Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramdhan, learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a order or direction to set aside the order dated 5.3.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, District Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 462 of 2023 (Sandeep Gupta vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 9.9.2023 (National Lok Adalat) passed by Presiding Officer Additional Court, Aligarh in Complaint No.884 of 2021 (Sandeep Gutpa vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument (N.I.) Act, (Annexure No. 1 collectively to this petition) and also directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 2 after recalling the order dated 9.9.2023 heard on merit after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. In compliance with the order dated 20.01.2025, the entire file in original, has been received and by bare perusal of the same, it is transpired that after order dated 21.07.2022, when the matter has been shown as listed on 13.12.2022, 20.02.2023, 27.04.2023, 22.06.2023, 04.08.2023 and lastly on 05.09.2023, there is hardly any endorsement available with regard to receiving dates either by petitioner or his counsel, otherwise before order dated 13.12.2022, on every dates, specific endorsement has been available in the ordersheet through which it has been transpired that the next date has been received on behalf of learned 2. counsel for petitioner before learned court of Additional Judge, Aligarh in Complaint Case No.884 of 2021. 4. Even though, on dated 05.09.2023, date has been fixed for 09.09.2023 and from the order passed on the said date, it has not transpired that under which circumstance, the matter has been put before National Lok Adalat once the petitioner was shown as not present on dated 13.12.2022, 20.02.2023, 27.04.2023, 22.06.2023, 04.08.2023 and 05.09.2023, meaning thereby he was having no information that his matter has been placed before National Lok Adalat on dated 09.09.2023 through which Complaint Case No.884 of 2021 preferred at the behest of petitioner, was dismissed by way of endorsing that petitioner is not willing to pursue his matter and the same has been consigned to record vide order dated 09.09.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh. 5. While challenging the impugned orders, one of the stands taken up by learned counsel for petitioner is that without any intimation and request in pursuance to Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat for its adjudication. Section 20 of the Act, 1987 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.—(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19— (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except 3. after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub- section (1)." 6. By bare perusal of Section 20 of the Act, 1987, it is crystal clear that matter may be referred to Lok Adalat if the parties thereof agree or one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court and after satisfaction of the learned court concerned that the matter is an 4. appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. There is specific provision available under Section 20 of the Act, 1987 that no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 7. Per contra, Sri Ramdhan, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that order dated 09.09.2023 passed by National Lok Adalat as well as order dated 05.03.2024 learned Session Judge, District Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 462 of 2023, are justified since the petitioner has been shown as not present from 13.12.2022 to 05.09.2023 and as such, prayer as made in the instant petition, is not maintainable and petition may be dismissed. At the same time, learned AGA also seconded the argument raised by learned counsel for respondent no.3. 8. After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for parties, it is crystal clear that the legal argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner, is squarely covered with the provisions mentioned under Section 20 of the Act, 1987 since there was no application preferred by either of the parties before learned court concerned for referring the matter before National Lok Adalat and moreso, petitioner has been continuously shown as not present from 13.12.2022 from 05.09.2023 and as such, matter placed before National Lok Adalat from the concerned court, is in gross violation of Section 20 of the Act, 1987. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated 9.9.2023 passed by National Lok Adalat in Complaint No.884 of 2021 and order dated 5.3.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, District Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 462 of 202, are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Judge, Aligarh for deciding the said complaint case as fresh, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him without granting any unnecessary 5. adjournment to either of the parties but after giving full opportunity of hearing to both sides. 10. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. 11. Office is hereby directed to return the entire original records of Complaint Case No.884 of 2021 to the Aligarh Judgeship forthwith. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad