Kerala High Court Clips Permanent Lok Adalat's Wings: Conciliation First, Adjudication Last

In a significant ruling on the scope of Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs), the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam has quashed an award by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam, emphasizing that conciliation under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is non-negotiable before any merits-based decision. Justice P.M. Manoj delivered the judgment in WP(C) No. 38944 of 2018 on March 2, 2026, siding with petitioners M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited and its MD Jose Mani against the Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association.

Roots of the Panjos Gardens Feud

The dispute traces back to infrastructure tensions at Panjos Gardens apartments in Kochi. Promoter Panjos Builders faced claims from the residents' association over amenities and services. Prior litigations, including O.S. No. 604/2007 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, and an arbitration award in 2008, had already gripped the matter. Undeterred, the association filed O.P. No. 270/2017 before the PLA in 2017, alleging issues possibly tied to electricity (KSEB) and civic services (Cochin Corporation). The PLA initially set the builders ex parte, but later allowed them to participate after costs—which saw a minor delay—before rushing to an award under Section 22C(8). The builders challenged this via writ petition, arguing jurisdictional overreach.

Builders' Battle Cry: No Jurisdiction, No Verdict

Petitioners hammered home three points: First, the dispute wasn't a "public utility service" under Section 22A(b)—limited to transport, power, water, etc.—rendering PLA powerless. Second, Section 22C mandates pre-litigation filings only; with O.S. 604/2007 already pending, the PLA was barred. Third, even if jurisdiction held, mandatory conciliation under Sections 22C(5)-(7) was skipped. They cited ex parte proceedings, their eventual appearance, and a slight costs delay as no excuse to bypass settlement efforts. Suppression of prior suits in the PLA complaint was also flagged.

The association stayed absent in the High Court, leaving their PLA-filed claims undefended.

Court's Razor-Sharp Legal Dissection

Justice Manoj dissected the Legal Services Authorities Act's Chapter VI-A, underscoring PLAs' dual role: conciliation primary, adjudication secondary and post-failure only. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, he rejected any shortcut.

In Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499), the apex court mapped Section 22C as a "step-by-step scheme": application, submissions, mandatory conciliation , settlement proposal, and only then merits if failed—even against absentees. Bar Council of India upheld PLAs' constitutionality but stressed settlement as the "main theme," with adjudication as last resort for public utility urgency.

The court found the dispute outside "public utility service," post-litigation (violating Section 22C(1)), and conciliation ignored despite petitioners' participation. Delay in costs remittance? No justification to skip steps. As news reports echoed, "delay in remitting costs to set aside ex parte order cannot be cited to forego conciliation."

Key Observations from the Bench

"It does not appear that the dispute considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat falls within the ambit of the definitions of 'public utility service' so as to attract the jurisdiction vested in it under the Act."

"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.'"

"The Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute without first complying with the mandatory conciliation procedure prescribed under Section 22C, particularly sub-sections (5) and (7)."

"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."

Award Annihilated: Path Cleared for Arbitration

"Ext.P10 order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed," declared Justice Manoj. Noting parties' prior arbitration reference (already concluded), the court cleared procedural hurdles.

This ruling reinforces PLA boundaries: no public utility, no pre-litigation purity, no skipped conciliation— no jurisdiction. Future tribunals must hew to the script, curbing ex parte overreach and bolstering settlement ethos. For developers and associations alike, it's a reminder: courts precede PLAs, conciliation precedes verdicts.