D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE authorities who are functionaries of the State and who are entrusted with power to grant what is known as a Caste certificate, certifying the community to which a person belongs to, are the petitioners in this Writ Petition. The 1st respondent is the person in whose favour such a certificate was sought for and the 2nd respondent to the Writ Petition is the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhandi. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the petition are : The 1st respondent had filed Original Suit No. 196/98 before the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jamakhandi, for a declaration about his caste that he belongs to a particular community and for consequential mandatory injunction for rectification of the records to this effect. It appears that the 1st respondent's community as indicated in the official records is Hindu Lingayat. The 1st respondent had filed the suit for a declaration that he belongs to Hindu Ganig and for the consequential mandatory injunction to the petitioners who were the defendants in the said suit for rectification of the Register indicating that he belongs to the caste Hindu Ganig. The suit was pending before the Trial Court. The defendants contested the suit and the Trial Court had also framed the issues. However by an order dated 17-11-1999 it appears the Trial Court referred the suit to Lok Adalat for settlement and disposal having purporting to be under the provisions of sections 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). ( 3 ) SRI Sreenivasagowda, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that the defendants in the first instance had not consented for the transferring of the suit to the Lok Adalat on the terms that there was likelihood of the suit being settled or compromised and he submitted that the suit was being contested and the Trial Court had also framed issues. ( 4 ) EVEN without such consent the suit has been referred to the Lok Adalat. The proceedings of the Lok Adalat are indicated as per Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and it makes very strange reading, to say the least. ( 4 ) EVEN without such consent the suit has been referred to the Lok Adalat. The proceedings of the Lok Adalat are indicated as per Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and it makes very strange reading, to say the least. The Lok Adalat, it appears has proceeded as thought it has determined the issues and the subject matter of the suit on merits, has discussed the evidence in the context of the various Exhibits that has been placed by the respondent before the Court and has come to a conclusion that the respondent belongs to Hindu Ganig community and not Hindu Lingayat. Hence the suit deserves to be allowed. The order also records that : "the suit is decreed that the plaintiff belongs to Hindu Ganig and the defendants shall rectify the same in the records of the plaintiff within two months. If he fails to rectify the same, the plaintiff shall proceed to file the execution petition for further relief. The suit is decreed in part. Draw decree accordingly. No cost. " ( 5 ) THE subsequent recording in the same order makes more strange reading. It records that some of the defendants were present, that they were not agreeable to sign the said order and in the circumstances particularly when the AGP indicated that unless he receives instructions from his client-Govt. he cannot agree for such a course of action and for such purpose it appears the Lok Adalat directed the learned A. G. P. to receive necessary administrative sanction and render valuable assistance to the Lok Adalat for speedy disposal on or before 4 months from that day. ( 6 ) IT is not clear as to this direction and observations have been made by the Lok Adalat in the context of other cases pending before it or in the very case; one aspect is very clear that Lok Adalat has not acted in conformity with the requirements of section 20 of the Act. The Lok Adalat is a forum constituted for resolving disputes by way of settlement amicably. It is only if the parties agree to a settlement, the Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to pass an award with their consent and in terms of such agreement between the parties. Lok Adalat is not a Court which adjudicates the matters in issue between the parties. It is only if the parties agree to a settlement, the Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction to pass an award with their consent and in terms of such agreement between the parties. Lok Adalat is not a Court which adjudicates the matters in issue between the parties. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the very reference to the Lok Adalat is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, as the Court could not have referred the matter to the Lok Adalat when both the parties to the suit had not consented for the matter being referred to the Lok Adalat. The Court has not recorded any consent of the parties to the suit for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat and in such circumstances, the Lok Adalat does not get any jurisdiction to look into the matter at all. ( 8 ) IT is rather strange that the trial Courts are having recourse to driving the parties to agree for referring the matters to Lok Adalat. The Act also provides that when the parties are not in agreement for settlement before the Lok Adalat, the matter has to be necessarily referred back to the Court and the Court will have to adjudicate on the same. What has been done in the instant case is in contravention of the very provisions and the spirit of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. Such proceedings before the Lok Adalat cannot be approved by this Court and I am of the view that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings before the Lok Adalat. The Trial Judge is also directed to ensure that matters which are to be referred to the Lok Adalat are done so only after the parties involved in the suit voluntarily consent for such reference to the Lok Adalat and not either by pressurising them or if any one of the parties to the suit indicate the willingness for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, the proceedings before the Lok Adalat including the so-called award dated 23-11-1999 before the Lok Adalat, Jamakhandi made in O. S. 196/98 are quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. Rule issued and made absolute. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, the proceedings before the Lok Adalat including the so-called award dated 23-11-1999 before the Lok Adalat, Jamakhandi made in O. S. 196/98 are quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. Rule issued and made absolute. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamkhandi is hereby directed to restore O. S. No. 196/98 to his file and proceed with the matter from the stage at which it was referred to the Lok Adalat. ( 10 ) THE respondent has not appeared in the above proceedings though being served, nor is represented by any counsel. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petition is allowed without levying cost on the parties. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .