The court emphasized the mandatory nature of conciliation proceedings before adjudication in disputes involving public utility services.
In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court has set aside an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, citing jurisdictional overreach and non-compliance with statutory conciliation procedures. The judgment was delivered by Justice P.M. Manoj in the case of M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association.
The case revolved around a dispute between Panjos Builders, a promoter company involved in infrastructure development, and the Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association. The association had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking resolution of their grievances. However, Panjos Builders contested the jurisdiction of the Adalat, pointing out that similar disputes were already being litigated in the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, under O.S.No.604/2007, thus barring the Adalat from intervening in the matter.
The crux of the judgment rested on the interpretation of Sections 22B and 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which govern the jurisdiction and procedures of Permanent Lok Adalats. As per these provisions, the Adalat’s jurisdiction is confined to pre-litigation disputes pertaining to public utility services, with a strong emphasis on conciliation before adjudication. The High Court underscored that these provisions were not adhered to, leading to a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the Adalat.
Justice Manoj highlighted that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to conduct mandatory conciliation proceedings before adjudicating the dispute on its merits. The Supreme Court’s precedent, established in Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, was cited, reinforcing the notion that conciliation must precede adjudication, even if the opposite party does not participate. The High Court clarified that adjudication could only proceed after failed conciliation attempts, a step the Adalat bypassed in this instance.
Moreover, the High Court noted that the dispute did not fall within the statutory definition of "public utility service," further questioning the jurisdictional grounds of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The judgment criticized the Adalat for proceeding with adjudication after Panjos Builders was initially set ex parte, despite the company later participating in the proceedings and filing for the setting aside of the ex parte order.
The Kerala High Court’s decision to overturn the Adalat’s award reinforces the procedural safeguards embedded in the Legal Services Authorities Act, emphasizing the primacy of conciliation in resolving disputes related to public utilities. The judgment also reflects a broader judicial insistence on compliance with statutory mandates to prevent jurisdictional overreach by quasi-judicial bodies.
Bottom line:-
Permanent Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction limited to pre-litigation disputes involving "public utility services" - Mandatory conciliation procedure under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 must be followed before adjudication.
Statutory provision(s): Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Sections 22B, 22C(5), 22C(7), 22C(8)
