- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2733 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. PRAKASH SAPALIGA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA SAPALIGA, ASHAJYOTHI, SACHARIPET P O, KARKALA TALUK - 576 121 D.K. DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. SUKUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S INDIAN OVER SEAS BANK MOODABIDRE BRANCH, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PIN - 574 227 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED PASSED ON 19.07.2018 IN PLD NO.240/2016 BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AT MANGALORE DK DIST WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2018, passed by the Permanent Lokadalat, at Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District in PLD No.240/2016 is before this Court seeking following reliefs: "Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 19.07.2018 in PLD No.240/2016 by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Mangalore D.K.District which is produced herewith marked as Annexure-C." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had availed financial assistance from the respondent – Bank, for the purpose of purchasing a Bus and had defaulted in repayment. Consequently respondent – Bank had initiated recovery proceedings before the Permanent Lokadalat in PLD No.240/2016. BY order dated 19.07.2018 said petition was allowed by the Lokadalath - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,78,573.72 with interest @ 11.70% from 01.01.2015 till realisation. 3. Taking this Court through the order sheet of the Permanent Lokadalat, produced at Annexure-B, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the matter was posted on 03.05.2016 on which date, the absence of the respondent / petitioner herein was noted. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 14.06.2016, on which date the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner herein was present, however, settlement was not reported and time as sought for by learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner herein was granted. 4. On 31.08.2016, 24.10.2016, 17.02.2017 and 27.04.2017 there was no sitting. However, all of a sudden on 27.07.2017, the Lokadalat has made a note that the conciliation has failed. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 16.09.2017, on which date, the Lokadalat has taken on record, the affidavit and the documents filed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 petitioner / respondent herein. Again, on 30.10.2017 and 26.12.2017 the matter was adjourned for want of quorum. That on 21.02.2018, the respondent has remained absent. Again on 20.04.2018, both the parties were absent. On 12.07.2018, the petitioner/ respondent herein appears to have filed a fresh affidavit and examined himself as PW-1 and produced and marked documents as Exhibits-P1 to P4. 5. The matter was posted for orders. Accordingly, on 19.07.2018, the Lokadalat has allowed the petition, directing the payment as noted above. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date the order was passed, Lokadalat was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter beyond Rs.10 lakhs. He submits that the said pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced subsequently to a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. Even if it is so, the amount awarded is in excess of Rs.20 lakhs, therefore the Lokadalat had no jurisdiction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 7. Secondly, he submits that the order reveals that there was no compliance to sub-section-(4) of Section-22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act’), which mandates conducting of the conciliation proceedings by the Permanent Lokadalat. Thus, he submits that on these two counts, the order passed by the Permanent Lokadalat requires to be quashed. 8. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent drawing attention of this Court to the footnote to Section-22C of the Act submits that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lokadalat contemplated under Section–22C of the Act, has been enhanced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.1 Crore by the Central Government Notification, therefore he submits that the grounds urged on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is not sustainable. 9. As regards the non-compliance to the requirement of conducting conciliation proceedings, he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 submits that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, who was represented by his counsel, since he continuously remained absent, the Lokadalat had no other option but to take the matter as ‘settlement not reported’ and proceeded to pass orders on merits. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 10. Heard. Perused the records. 11. The facts narrated above do not require any reiteration. However, on perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that there has been no meaningful conciliation process conducted by the Permanent Lokadalat as warranted under sub-sections (4), (5) and (7) of Section- 22C of the Act, absence of respondent or adjournment as sought for by the counsel cannot be a ground to hold that there was no settlement, more particularly, when Permanent Lokadalat itself was not holding sitting for about six hearing dates. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 12. The purpose of permanent Lokadalat is to ensure that the parties are provided with sufficient opportunity, with necessary help and assistance for conciliation process to arrive at an amicable resolution in the matter which is the purpose of alternate dispute resolution mechanism. The order sheet does not reveal the same has been achieved. Though the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is raised, in the light of amendment to the pecuniary jurisdiction, enhancing the same to Rs.1 Crore as noted above, this Court rejects the said ground. However, on the ground of requirement of conciliation, the petition succeeds and stands allowed. The award impugned is therefore quashed. 13. The matter is remitted to the Permanent Lokadalat, Mangalore, who shall after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent enabling them to arrive at an amicable resolution in the matter and after satisfying itself, that the parties either had arrived at a settlement or had failed to arrive at a settlement as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7559 WP No. 2733 of 2021 contemplated under the provision of Section-22C of the Act, proceed to pass orders. 14. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsels, they shall appear before the permanent Lokadalat on 28.02.2026, without any further notice in this regard. It is made clear that the petitioner herein shall ensure that he shall appear before the Permanent Lokadalat without fail, the Permanent Lokadalat shall proceed to pass orders expeditiously and parties shall not protract the matter unnecessarily. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16