Kerala High Court
Najeeb V.I vs Permanent Lok Adalat At Ernakulam on 15 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37515 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
NAJEEB V.I.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE ISMAIL V.M., VALIYAKATH HOUSE, PIPELINE ROAD,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006.
BY ADVS.
B.RATHEESH
SREENATH S.
SETHUMADHAVAN D.
GYOTHISH CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AT ERNAKULAM,
FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
GROUND FLOOR, ADR CENTRE, DISTRICT COURT ANNEX PREMISES
KALOOR, KOCHI- 17.
2 JOHNSON RAIJU,
S/O M.J JOSEPH, MAKKIL HOUSE, ARYAD-ATHIPOZHY ROAD,
MUNDAMVELI P.O, KOCHI-682007.
BY ADV G.KRISHNAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P2 Award of the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam, on various
grounds, including that it exceeded its
jurisdiction in considering and adjudicating an
issue relating to "Housing", which is beyond
Section 22(A) of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act',
for short); and further that, it could not have
entered into a final Award as has been done,
without first engaging the parties in
conciliation under Section 22 C (8) of the 'Act'.
He thus prays that Ext.P2 be set aside.
2. Smt.Agnet Jarard - learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent, however, opposed the afore
submissions of the petitioner, as made by his
learned counsel - Sri.Ratheesh B., very
vehemently, relying upon the judgment of a
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
learned Division Bench of this Court in Santhosh
T.N. v. Permanent Lok Adalath and others [2023
(2) KHC 1 (DB], arguing that, Section 22 A (b)
of the 'Act' vests the Permanent Lok Adalat with
enough jurisdiction to deal even with "Housing
and Real Estate".
3. She contented that, therefore, the afore
submissions of the petitioner are wholly
untenable, particularly when he chose to remain
exparte before the Permanent Lok Adalat. She,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
4. I have no doubt that the arguments of
Smt.Agnet Jarard, is on terra firma because,
when the petitioner chose not to appear before
the Permanent Lok Adalat, one wonders how he now
raises questions of jurisdiction and such other
before this Court. If he wanted to impel them,
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
he ought to have appeared before the Permanent
Lok Adalat; and ought to have filed his
objections. When he chose not to do so, his
contentions before this Court can only be seen
to be an afterthought.
5. That said, it is pertinent that the
petitioner says that though had received summons
from the Permanent Lok Adalat, the name of his
father was shown incorrectly in it; and
therefore, that he was under the impression that
the person to whom it was addressed to was not
himself. This explanation certainly is
incredulous, if not specious, because once the
petitioner concedes to have received summons
from the Permanent Lok Adalat, it was upto him
to have responded to it, either asserting that
it is not him, or that his particulars were
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
incorrect. Without doing so, he chose to sit on
the summons and then invite Ext.P2 order.
6. But, the acme question is if the
petitioner can be given one more opportunity
before the Loak Adalat.
7. I, therefore, put into Smt.Agnet Jarard
- learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, whether
her client will stand in the way of a limited
opportunity of being given to the petitioner, to
impel her contentions before the Permanent Lok
Adalat, so that the matter can then be disposed
of on its merits. She very fairly submitted
that, since her client requires substantial
justice be done, she will not stand in the way
of such opportunity being granted; however
praying that this Court fix a specific time
frame for the Adalat to dispose of the matter
afresh.
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
Taking note of the afore submissions and
adverting to the consent given by the 2 nd
respondent, I allow this writ petition, to the
limited extent of directing the Permanent Lok
Adalat to rehear the matter and decide whether
any modification to Ext.P2 is necessary, after
affording necessary opportunities to both sides.
I make it clear that, for this purpose, the
petitioner will not be entitled to seek any
adjournment and will co-operate with the Adalat
fully, while the proceedings are completed.
For an expeditious compliance of the afore
directions, I direct the parties to mark
appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat at 11
A.M on 26.02.2024; on which day, either the said
Authority will hear the matter afresh, or assign
another convenient date for such; and dispose it
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
of, not later than one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, further proceedings in the
execution against the petitioner, on the basis
of Ext.P2, will stand stayed; however,
clarifying that this will not interdict any
action or orders already issued, which shall be
maintained until the afore exercise is
completed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS
WP(C) NO.37515 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37515/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.01.2019 IN O.P NO.
76/2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 RUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 IN EA
NO.113/2022 IN EP NO.26/2019 IN OP NO.76/2018.
