Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, Bank of India, Elada Branch seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in LAOP No.571/2004 in case No.315 of 2004 on the file of the 8th respondent dated 03.09.2004 and to quash the order of such respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate on behalf of the 8th respondent. No representation for respondents 1 to 7. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 5 effected borrowings from it, having executed due security documents. The dues of the respondents also stood acknowledged by them. The petitioner had, in keeping with the agreement, effected payment of the loan amounts to the 7th respondent, from whom the respondents 1 to 5 were to receive goods. 4. Contending that the petitioner was unduly harassing them and the 7th respondent had not supplied the goods to them, the respondents 1 to 5 sought the reference of the matter to Lok Adalat as per provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The matter was duly referred and the order under challenge came to be passed in Lok Adalat proceedings. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the employee of the Bank, which had offered finances to the respondents 1 to 5 towards purchase of goods from respondent 7, had merely attended the proceedings upon receipt of summons and had been forced to affix the signature to the proceedings, which recorded that the Adalat had effectively conciliated the matter and arrived at a settlement. Fearing the officials in charge to be Court functionaries, the petitioner's representative had done so. 6. The petitioner contends that though the recorded proceedings reflected the position that the petitioner Bank was not to effect recoveries from respondents 1 to 5, but to proceed against the 7th respondent, the 7th respondent had not attended the proceedings. In support of the said contention, the petitioner refers to the order copy of the Lok Adalat dated 03.09.2004 wherein while the signatures of the Judge and members who formed the conciliatory body, the respondents 1 to 5 as also that of the petitioner's representative is to be found, the signature of the 7th respondent conspicuously is absent. 7. In support of the said contention, the petitioner refers to the order copy of the Lok Adalat dated 03.09.2004 wherein while the signatures of the Judge and members who formed the conciliatory body, the respondents 1 to 5 as also that of the petitioner's representative is to be found, the signature of the 7th respondent conspicuously is absent. 7. From the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court gathers that the need for an order in the present writ petition arises towards ensuring that what essentially is meant to be a conciliation process is not made a coercive one. There is no ambiguity over the position that the claim, if any, of the petitioner against their borrowers respondents 1 to 5 as also the guarantor of one of the borrowers viz., respondent 6 clearly stands time barred. Even so, this Court sets aside the order under challenge for the following reason: Section 19(5)(ii) provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. The present is a case of reference to Lok Adalat before commencement of any litigation before Court. Hence, Section 19(5)(ii) stands attracted. Sub Section (2) of Section 20 which deals with Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, reads as follows: "(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." 9. One of the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to it before reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat. One of the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to it before reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat. Even without going into that aspect of the matter, this Court would allow this writ petition since Sections 20 (4), (5) and (6), which read as hereunder stand attracted: "(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 Subsection (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." 10. As has been pointed out earlier, this Court does not find the signature of the 7th respondent in the record of proceedings of the Lok Adalat. Therefore, in the absence of the 7th respondent, who necessarily is a contesting party in the issue, no record of compromise or settlement could have been arrived at. Therefore, though this Court finds that the writ petition stands dismissed as against the 7th respondent on account of non payment of batta, this Court would allow this writ petition and quash the order under challenge on the reasoning that in the absence of the 7th respondent before it, the Lok Adalat could not have arrived at a finding on the issue raised before it. The writ petition is ordered according. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.