Allowed

Devasia E.K., v. the Permanent Lok Adalath

Kerala HC30 Mar 2023WP(C)/8527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order dismissing a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Relying on precedents, it held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not oust the Lok Adalat's jurisdiction over 'housing and real estate service' disputes. The petition was allowed, directing the Adalat to rehear the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order dismissing the complaint is set aside; the petitioner is directed to present the complaint before the Lok Adalat within one month.

Devasia E.K., Vs the Permanent Lok Adalath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8527 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DEVASIA E.K.,

¶8

S/O YOHANNAN, EATTIKKAL VEEDU, ERATTAYAR NORTH P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685514.

¶9

BY ADVS. A.A.SHIBI SRI.D.B.BINU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, GROUND FLOOR, ADR CENTRE, DISTRICT COURT ANNEX PREMISES, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

¶12

2 B.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, BHADRA VILASAM VEEDU, NATHUKALLU KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UPPUKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685514.

¶13

ADV. SRI.M.V.RAJENDRAN NAIR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.8527/2019 :2:

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat ('Lok Adalat', for short) constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, has jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 complaint by the advent of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, “RERA”).

¶18

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

¶19

The petitioner is a building contractor. The 2^nd respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner for construction of a residential building in his property. Contending that amounts are due from the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner approached the Lok Adalat by Ext. P1 complaint for direction to the 2^nd respondent to pay the balance amount due under the contract and for ancillary reliefs.

¶20

The 2^nd respondent filed Ext.P2 objection and counterclaim.

¶21

The petitioner filed Ext. P3 objection to the counterclaim of

¶22

the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

W.P.(C)No.8527/2019 :3:

¶24

The Lok Adalat conducted conciliation as per Section 22C(4)

¶25

of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and since the matter was not settled, the Lok Adalat proceeded with the case and considered the maintainability of Ext. P1 complaint as preliminary issue in view of the enactment of RERA and as per Ext.P4 order, held that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the same after coming into force of RERA and returned the complaint to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate forum.

¶26

The plea of the petitioner in this writ petition is that Ext. P1 is maintainable before the Lok Adalat and seeks to quash Ext.P4. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Lok Adalat to take Ext. P1 complaint back to file and consider the same on merits.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

The question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is ousted by the advent of the RERA was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Santhosh T.N v . Permanent Lok Adalath

¶29

W.P.(C)No.8527/2019 :4:

¶30

[2023 (2) KHC 1] wherein it was held that RERA does not exclude jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain and decide disputes relating to ‘housing and real estate service.’

¶31

In the light of the said decision, Ext. P4 order is set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to take Ext. P1 complaint back to file, if presented by the petitioner within one month from today and consider the same on merits along with counterclaim, if any, with notice to the parties, expeditiously.

¶32

The writ petition is allowed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶35

W.P.(C)No.8527/2019 :5:

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8527/2019

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION O.P.216/2017, FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION AND COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P1 DATED 28.12.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P2 DATED 4.1.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.2.2019 IN O.P.216/2017 OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 16.2.2016.

¶39

spc/

Devasia E.K., v. the Permanent Lok Adalath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devasia E.K., v. the Permanent Lok Adalath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukumaran K.C. Vs Reliance General Insurance Company

Jayan a K Vs the Principal Secretary

Reshma S. Vijay Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Muhammed Enoli Vs Shailaja

Saneesh Kumar M, Vs the District Collector

Biniya Vs State of Kerala