Permanent Lok Adalat Can't Adjudicate Disputes Without Mandatory Conciliation Under Legal Services Authorities Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 22C of the Legal Services Act, Permanent Lok Adalats must comply with the mandate of conciliation before adjudicating a dispute on merits and that delay in remitting costs to set aside ex parte order cannot be cited to forego conciliation.Justice P.M. Manoj further observed that the Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute which is...
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 22C of the Legal Services Act, Permanent Lok Adalats must comply with the mandate of conciliation before adjudicating a dispute on merits and that delay in remitting costs to set aside ex parte order cannot be cited to forego conciliation.
Justice P.M. Manoj further observed that the Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute which is already seized by a court.
The Court relied on the Apex Court decision in Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama and observed:
“Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute without first complying with the mandatory conciliation procedure prescribed under Section 22C... The explanation offered by the Adalat, namely, the respondent did not appear after filing the written statement and therefore conciliation was not possible, cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court of India has categorically held that adjudication under Section 22C(8) can be resorted to only when a party present before the Permanent Lok Adalat does not agree for settlement, or when the absent party fails to respond within a reasonable time… Merely on the ground of delay in remitting the costs as directed, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the matter on merits. Such a course of action is not contemplated either under the statutory provisions or under the law laid down by the Apex Court.”
The petitioner is a company engaged in infrastructure development. When disputes arose between the petitioner and the owners' association of an apartment complex, the association filed an original petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
The petitioner filed a reply and contended that since there was past litigation between the parties, the Adalat was precluded from taking cognizance of the case as per Section 22C of the Act. Moreover, the primary of Permanent Lok Adalats is to facilitate settlement through conciliation, which is mandatory before adjudication of the dispute.
It was also submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat's jurisdiction is limited and specified by Section 22B, which states that exercise of jurisdiction is only with respect of one or more public utility services and within areas specified by notification.
The Adalat set the petitioner ex parte and it filed an application to set aside the order. After considering the application, the Adalat directed the petitioner to pay costs. Even though costs were paid, due to slight delay in remitting the same, the Adalat passed an award without the mandatory conciliation process. Challenging the award, the petitioner company approached the High Court.
The Court looked at the records and pleadings and concluded that the dispute considered by the Adalat was outside its jurisdiction for not being one under “public utility service”.
“Section 22C specifically contemplates pre-litigation proceedings, which stipulate that “any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of the dispute.” In the present case, in the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it was specifically contended that the first respondent had already approached the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam…seeking reliefs similar in nature to those prayed for in the original petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, there is a clear violation of Section 22C of the Act, resulting in the ouster of jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat as contemplated under Section 22B,” it remarked.
Thus, the Court allowed the plea and set aside the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat for passed without jurisdiction.
Case No: WP(C) No. 38944 of 2018
Case Title: M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
Counsel for the petitioners: Johnson Gomez, C. Unnikrishnan (Kollam), S. Biju (Kizhakkanela), A.V. Indira
Counsel for the respondents: P.U. Shailajan, Arunkumar A. – SC – KSEB, K.P. Justine (Karipat) – Standing Counsel – Cochin Corporation, Vidya Kuriakose, M.R. Jayaprasad, Sethulekshmi Prabha