JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The informant of Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2005, G.R.No. 1531 of 2005, has filed this application for quashing of part of the order dated 5.7.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad , whereby he has sent the said Daudnagar Police Case to the Lok Adalat. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said case was registered under Sections 143, 379, 427 I.P.C. against nine persons named in the F.I.R. and a protest petition was pending therein, but on 5.7.2006 final report along with case diary was received and orders were made to issue notice to the informant fixing 28.9.2006 by the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and notwithstanding the same, by a subsequent order of the same date under the signature of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad , the case was directed to be transmitted to the Lok Adalat. 3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that it will appear from the perusal of the certified copy of the order dated 5.7.2006 that although the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of final report and the case diary had directed by his order, written in English, for issuance of notice to the informant fixing 28.9.2006, a subsequent order of the same date written in Hindi under the signature of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate said to be under orders transmitted the case to the Lok Adalat with no information of any kind to the petitioner and this apparently, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is an abuse of the process of the court. 4. Apparent illegality, impropriety and an abuse of the process of the court is writ large on the face of the order. It appears that the two orders, one in Hindi and the other in English, are in conflict with each other having been passed by two different officers on the same day. This discloses a sorry state of affairs and is a clear case of non-application of mind. 5. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order in Hindi does not disclose as to from where he received orders for transmitting the case to the Lok Adalat. 6. This discloses a sorry state of affairs and is a clear case of non-application of mind. 5. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order in Hindi does not disclose as to from where he received orders for transmitting the case to the Lok Adalat. 6. A reading of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") per se reveals that the sine quo non for taking cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalat is filing of joint application by all the parties to the suit or proceeding indicating their intention to compromise the matter or to arrive at a settlement and when such application is made, then the section empowers the Presiding Officer of the Court or the Tribunal instead of proceeding to record a compromise between the parties or to arrive at a settlement himself, he may pass an order that the suit or proceeding shall stand transferred to the Lok Adalat for arriving at a compromise or settlement between the parties to the suit. This obviously would mean that the compromise or settlement is to be entered into between all the parties in the suit or proceeding. 7. In the instant case, it would appear from the impugned order that the matter has been referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent of the informant for such reference and that, too, where a protest petition filed by the informant is pending. 8. Now a days it has become a lamentable practice for final report submitted by the Investigating Officer to be referred to the Lok Adalat for disposal with the primary purpose of increasing the number of disposal of cases by the Lok Adalat. This obviously is a back-door method of playing with numbers. 9. True, it is that where final reports are submitted by the police, the courts are free to transmit the same to the Lok Adalat. However, in the instant case, an order had already been passed for issuance of notice to the informant and a particular date had been fixed. This obviously is a back-door method of playing with numbers. 9. True, it is that where final reports are submitted by the police, the courts are free to transmit the same to the Lok Adalat. However, in the instant case, an order had already been passed for issuance of notice to the informant and a particular date had been fixed. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by a subsequent order of the same date on receipt of orders has directed for transmitting the case to the Lok Adalat without disclosing wherefrom he had received such orders and why the case was being transmitted to the Lok Adalat ignoring the fact that the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the final report and case diary had earlier on that very date directed for issuance of notice to the informant. The action of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing the subsequent order appears to be highly irregular and improper as also in contravention of Section 20 of the Act and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.The consent of the informant whose protest petition was pending was also not taken. 10. Accordingly, the subsequent order in Hindi dated 5.7.2006 referring the matter to the Lok Adalat is hereby set aside and the application is allowed. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Hon ble Chairman, and the Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Budh Marg,Patna, in the fond hope that necessary directions are issued to the Civil Courts and Lok Adalats to regulate their functions as per the provisions of the Act and not to take illegal and improper steps, as has been done in the instant case.