( 1 ) THE insurance company has taken out this writ petition dated March 20th, 2006 questioning the ex parte award dated January 21st, 2006 made by the Lok Adalat organised by the Calcutta High Court Legal Services committee. ( 2 ) THE award is set out herein below : - "appearance has been made on behalf of the petitioner. None appears for the respondent on this occasion also though notices were properly served on them. It was indicated on last occasion (3. 9. 05) that as the insurance company did not pay any heed to the prayers made on behalf of the petitioner and also the direction given by the respondent the claim would be presumed to have been admitted by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid position we are inclined to pass an award for Rs. 15,33,786/- as indicated in the annexure to the claim petition. The respondent is to pay all the aforesaid amount covered in this award within three weeks. If the payment is not made as indicated the petitioner would be at liberty to realise the amount by execution of this award and in that event the award would carry interest at the rate of 9% p. a. The application is, thus, disposed of without any order as to costs. " ( 3 ) THE fourth respondent (Sri Sudipta Dutta) owned a motorcab (with a taximeter fitted on it), which was insured with the insurance company. He alleged that on April 8th, 1990 the driver engaged by him did not return it, and that it could not be traced out thereafter. He moved this Court by filing a writ petition that was registered as C. O. No. 15524 (W) of 1992. He alleged that his insurance claim amounting to Rs. 1,58,000/- for loss of the vehicle had not been processed by the insurance company, though he was lawfully entitled to get that amount. ( 4 ) BY an ex parte judgment and order dated April 3rd, 2003 that writ petition was disposed of saying, "in these view of the matter, this writ petition shall succeed. 1,58,000/- for loss of the vehicle had not been processed by the insurance company, though he was lawfully entitled to get that amount. ( 4 ) BY an ex parte judgment and order dated April 3rd, 2003 that writ petition was disposed of saying, "in these view of the matter, this writ petition shall succeed. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I am of the view that since more than decade has passed in the meantime so for the interest of justice the same should be decided by the Lok Adalat so to make available to the writ petitioner, the compensation for the loss suffered by her. I, therefore, direct that this matter be placed before the Lok Adalat that may be held immediately hereafter for the purpose of assessment of the quantum of compensation on the claim case of the petitioner and for making necessary direction for payment of the same as may be determined by the Lok Adalat. It is also observed that while disposing the matter as above by the Lok Adalat, the question as to the grant of interest on the among of compensation determined shall also be taken into account. " ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY the Lok Adalat took cognizance of the case and issued notice to the parties. On December 5th, 2003 it made an order after hearing the fourth respondent, represented by his advocate, and the representative of the Insurance Company. From time to time, it made several ex parte orders. On October 11th, 2004 the Insurance Company appeared before it for the second and last time. ( 6 ) IN its order dated September 3rd, 2005 it said, "the petitioner is present. None appears for the Insurance Company though notices were served from the High Court Lok Adalat Establishment and also by the petitioner with the leave of this Lok Adalat Bench. It appears that the petitioner submitted a claim petition with detailed break up. Let the matter come up in the next sitting of Lok Adalat Bench with specific indication that this Bench would allow the entire amount of the petition if the respondent insurance Company fails to appear before the next sitting of the Lok Adalat and makes its submission. " Even then the insurance company did not participate in the proceedings, and in the circumstances the ex parte was made. " Even then the insurance company did not participate in the proceedings, and in the circumstances the ex parte was made. ( 7 ) THE High Court Legal Services Committee has filed an affidavit. Counsel appearing for it has said that since the Insurance Company, in spite of service of notice, chose not to appear, and since the case had been referred to the Lok Adalat by this Court, the award in question was made after hearing the fourth respondent. ( 8 ) ON the strength of the Apex Court decisions in State of Punjab and ors. v. Phulon Rani and Anr. , (2004)7 SCC 555 , and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ganpat Raj, AIR 2006 SC 3089 and by referring me to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Sections 19 and 20, Counsel for the insurance Company has submitted that the Lok Adalat, because of the legal constraints, was not competent to make an ex parte award, since it was empowered to make an award only on the basis of the compromise or settlement reached by the parties before it. His contention is that since the insurance Company thought it fit not to participate in the proceedings, the lok Adalat was required to return the case to this Court. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the fourth respondent has argued that the Insurance company has not come with clean hands, since in para 13 of the writ petition it incorrectly stated that after December 5th, 2003 it was not represented before the Lok Adalat, when it is apparent on the face of the order of the lok Adalat dated October 11th, 2004 that on that date it was represented by its representative. His next contention is that in view of provisions in section 22 (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Lok Adalat was empowered to specify its own procedure, and that in exercise of that power the Lok Adalat adopted a procedure for making the ex parte award. ( 10 ) HE has said that the procedure to be followed was mentioned in order dated September 3rd, 2005. ( 10 ) HE has said that the procedure to be followed was mentioned in order dated September 3rd, 2005. As to the Apex Court decisions relied upon by Counsel for the Insurance Company, his submission is that while in those cases the entire dispute had been referred to the Lok Adalat for determining the respective rights of the parties, here only the question of computation of the amount payable, after determining right of the fourth respondent, was referred by this Court to the Lok Adalat, and hence the proposition laid down in those authorities will have no manner of application to this case. ( 11 ) THE question for decision is whether the Lok Adalat was competent to make an ex parte award. I do not see how in exercise of powers conferred on it by provisions in Section 22 (2) it could lay down a procedure for making an ex parte award, when the provisions in Section 20 (3) specifically said, "the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. " The scope and ambit of the powers conferred on the Lok Adalat was clarified by the provisions in section 20 (5) saying, "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. " Here the reference was made by this Court in terms of provisions in Section 20 (1) (ii ). ( 12 ) HENCE, once the Lok Adalat failed to persuade the insurance company into making a compromise or settlement with the fourth respondent, it incurred the statutory obligation to return the case record to this Court for disposal of the matter in accordance with law. By relying on provisions in section 22 (2) it was not empowered to make an ex parte award on the ground that in spite of notices and orders the insurance company chose not to participate in the proceedings. The two Apex Court decisions given to me made the legal position absolutely clear. By relying on provisions in section 22 (2) it was not empowered to make an ex parte award on the ground that in spite of notices and orders the insurance company chose not to participate in the proceedings. The two Apex Court decisions given to me made the legal position absolutely clear. Their Lordships of the Apex court held that in the absence of a compromise or settlement between the parties a Lok Adalat would not be competent to make any award. ( 13 ) I do not agree with counsel for the fourth respondent that since only the question of computation of the amount payable was referred by this Court, the Lok Adalat was empowered to make an ex parte award. It is not correct to say that in the process of computation the Lok Adalat was not to touch rights of the parties. In the writ petition the fourth respondent claimed rs. 1,58,000/-, and before the Lok Adalat he increased it to Rs. 15,33,786/-, and award for this amount was made. In my view, even if a part of a dispute involved in a case is referred to the Lok Adalat, it is not competent to make an ex parte award, since the power conferred on it is only to make an award on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties. ( 14 ) I am again unable to agree with Counsel for the fourth respondent that the Lok Adalat rightly proceeded by applying the doctrine of non- traverse. Since it was empowered to make an award only on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties, it was not competent to apply the doctrine of non-traverse. In the absence of a party in the reference, it was simply not competent to make an award within the meaning of section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In such an eventuality it was required to return the case record to this Court from which it had received the reference. The inconsequential incorrect statement in para 13 of the writ petition must be ignored in the face of the patent illegality vitiating the impugned award. ( 15 ) FOR these reasons, I hold that the ex parte award of the Lok adalat dated January 21st, 2006 cannot be sustained in law. The inconsequential incorrect statement in para 13 of the writ petition must be ignored in the face of the patent illegality vitiating the impugned award. ( 15 ) FOR these reasons, I hold that the ex parte award of the Lok adalat dated January 21st, 2006 cannot be sustained in law. I accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside the award, and order that the Lok Adalat concerned shall return the record of the case to this Court for disposal in accordance with law, since the parties in the reference decided not to compromise or settle. Steps for sending the record of the case shall be taken immediately, so that the parties may take appropriate steps before this Court for expeditious disposal for the matter. There shall be no order for costs in the case. .