JUDGMENT : The petitioner Urmila Masomat challenged the award dated 18th December, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mega Lok Adalat, Katihar, whereby Amdabad P.S.Case No. 38 of 2002 dated 12th June, 2002 registered under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) was disposed of. 2. The issues which fell for consideration in the writ application were three fold, which are as under :- (i) Whether a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 or a permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law ? (ii) Whether a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act can pass an award without having there any compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties ? (iii) Whether a member or the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat can dispose of any matter by affixing a pre-prepared award stamp ? 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before the Court that the aforesaid police case instituted under Section 302 of the IPC had been disposed of by the Presiding Officer of Mega Lok Adalat even without serving any notice to the petitioner, who was informant of the case, and in absence of the parties, without there being any settlement or compromise on record. 4. Being shocked and surprised by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 15th March, 2016 summoned the lower court records of Amdabad P.S.Case No. 38 of 2002 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. 5. On examination of the record, this Court noticed that a serious case registered under Section 302 of the IPC was disposed of by the Presiding Officer of the Mega Lok Adalat on 18th December, 2011 not only in absence of the parties, but also without any settlement or without any notice to them in utter haste. Another disturbing aspect, which the Court noticed was that the Presiding Officer of the Mega Lok Adalat had disposed of the case by affixing and signing a pre-prepared order/award stamp, which reads as under : “The Case Record Put up today for disposal in Mega Lok Adalat. The Case is disposed in Mega Lok Adalat. Office is directed to deposit the Case Record in RR. The Case is disposed in Mega Lok Adalat. Office is directed to deposit the Case Record in RR. Sd/- P. O.” 6. Having noticed the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, vide order dated 10th May, 2016, this Court called for an explanation from the Presiding Officer of the Mega Lok Adalat, Katihar, who disposed of the matter on 18th December, 2011. 7. The Presiding Officer in his explanation dated 18th June, 2016 submitted that since there was an atmosphere of enthusiasm and competition to dispose of the maximum number of cases in the Mega Lok Adalat on 18th December, 2011 and the Judicial Officers, including him, were under immense pressure to dispose of the highest number of cases and possibly that was the reason the aforesaid Amdabad P. S. Case No. 38 of 2002 was also disposed of on that day. He further submitted that more than thousand cases were disposed of by different Presiding Officers of Mega Lok Adalat on that day in Katihar judgeship and the manner of disposal was the same, i.e. by affixing a pre-prepared award stamp and signing over it. 8. This Court being dismayed in the manner in which the entire matter had been dealt with undermining the very purpose and object of Lok Adalat, while allowing the writ application by setting aside the award dated 18th December, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer of Mega Lok Adalat, Katihar vide order dated 12th July, 2016, called for a report from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar as to how many cases involving offences, which were not compoundable under any law were disposed of by the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat on 18th December, 2011 and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Court under the heading “For Orders” on receipt of the report. 9. In compliance with the order dated 12th July, 2016, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar scrutinized the record of all cases disposed of by the Mega Lok Adalat held on 18th December, 2011 and submitted his report dated 27th August, 2016 vide Letter No. 3115 of 2016, a scanned copy of which is extracted hereinbelow :- xxx 10. 9. In compliance with the order dated 12th July, 2016, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar scrutinized the record of all cases disposed of by the Mega Lok Adalat held on 18th December, 2011 and submitted his report dated 27th August, 2016 vide Letter No. 3115 of 2016, a scanned copy of which is extracted hereinbelow :- xxx 10. On perusal of the report, I find that that in all 1620 criminal cases were disposed of by five Presiding Officers in the Mega Lok Adalat held on 18th December, 2011, out of which, 1161 criminal cases were found not compoundable under different penal laws. 11. On perusal of the report, I also find that out of aforesaid 1161 cases, 1158 cases were disposed of by the same Officer, who had disposed of Amdabad P.S. Case No. 38 of 2002. There is no difficulty in presuming the fact that all such cases were disposed of in absence of the parties as also in absence of a compromise or settlement and that too without recording the dispute between the parties by affixing a pre-prepared award stamp, as the officer, who disposed of those cases has himself accepted in his explanation that more than thousand cases were disposed of by the Mega Lok Adalat on 18th December, 2011 and the manner of disposal was the same, as in Amdabad P.S.Case No. 38 of 2002. 12. For the present, the moot question before the Court now on receipt of the report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar is what to do with these 1161 cases disposed of by Mega Lok Adalat on 18th December, 2011. This Court being mindful of the fact that the concerned parties have not approached this Court in respect of those 1161 cases, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot shut my eyes after having noticed the gross illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of orders passed by the Lok Adalats. 13. This Court being mindful of the fact that the concerned parties have not approached this Court in respect of those 1161 cases, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot shut my eyes after having noticed the gross illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of orders passed by the Lok Adalats. 13. This Court has already held while allowing the prayer of the petitioner Urmila Masomat that the Lok Adalat constituted under the Act shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to any offence not compoundable under any law and it cannot pass any award without having any compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties and the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat cannot dispose of any matter by affixing a pre-prepared award stamp. 14. It is well settled that if a Court is “without authority”, its judgments and orders are regarded as “nullity”. They are not “voidable”, but simply “void” from its inception and forever continues to be absolutely null and without legal efficacy. Such judgment is incapable of being enforced in any manner. 15. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) Vs. B.D. Agarwal [ (2003) 6 SCC 230 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of an order passed by a Court without jurisdiction and held as under :- “It is now well-settled that an order passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Any order passed or action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof would also be nullities. In the instant case, as the High Court did not have any jurisdiction to record the compromise for the reasons stated hereinbefore and in particular as no writ was required to be issued having regard to the fact that public law remedy could not have been resorted to, the impugned orders must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. All orders and actions taken pursuant to or in furtherance thereof must also be declared wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently are liable to be set aside. They are declared as such.” 16. Having regard to the well settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Lok Adalats do not have the power, by a judicial fiat to extend its jurisdiction over the matters beyond the scope of the authority granted to it under the Act. They are declared as such.” 16. Having regard to the well settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Lok Adalats do not have the power, by a judicial fiat to extend its jurisdiction over the matters beyond the scope of the authority granted to it under the Act. The orders/awards passed in the aforesaid 1161 cases by the Presiding Officers of the Lok Adalat were “Coram non judice”. 17. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the awards passed by the Presiding Officers of the Lok Adalat, Katihar on 18th December, 2011 in respect of 1161 non-compoundable criminal cases, details of which have been given in Annexure-A to the report dated 27th August, 2016 submitted by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar, as extracted hereinabove, cannot be sustained. They all are set aside accordingly. 18. The matters may now be considered afresh by the respective courts from which the matters were sent to the Lok Adalat in accordance with law in the light of observation made above. 19. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar is directed to ensure that all the aforesaid 1161 cases are restored back to their original files. He shall also monitor these cases so that they may be disposed of by the courts of competent jurisdiction expeditiously. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. 21. Registry is directed to communicate the order to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Katihar forthwith.