The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that Permanent Lok Adalats lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from defective road maintenance, even when such defects result in fatal accidents. This ruling reinforces the statutory limits of alternative dispute resolution forums under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and provides critical guidance on forum shopping and limitation concerns.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Bala Devi and another, are the parents of Sandeep Kumar, who died on 01.01.2017 after sustaining fatal head injuries. On 28.12.2016 at approximately 08:20 PM, Sandeep Kumar, a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by a relative, was traveling near Government School, Kunjpura, Karnal. The motorcycle fell into a large pothole on the public road, causing Sandeep Kumar to jump off and strike his head against an iron advertising board bearing the name of Karnal Group of Institutions. He was admitted to hospital and succumbed to his injuries the next day.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on a public road maintained by the State Government or its agencies
- The petitioners filed an application under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal, seeking compensation for wrongful death
- The application was filed within the limitation period, though the exact filing date is not specified in the judgment
- The Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) held the matter beyond its jurisdiction and dismissed the petition on 10.01.2025
- The petitioners’ application remained pending before the PLA for over five years before dismissal
- No compensation was awarded, and no merits-based adjudication occurred
Procedural History
- 28.12.2016: Incident causing death of Sandeep Kumar
- 01.01.2017: Death of victim in hospital
- Date unspecified (prior to 10.01.2025): Petition filed under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before PLA, Karnal
- 10.01.2025: PLA dismissed petition on grounds of jurisdiction, holding road maintenance not covered under Section 22A(b)
- 23.03.2026: Writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contended that the PLA’s five-year delay in adjudication, followed by abrupt dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, left them without remedy. They argued that if they now approach a civil court, the limitation period would have expired, thereby denying them access to justice.
The respondents, including the PLA and the State, maintained that the PLA’s jurisdiction is strictly confined to services enumerated under Section 22A(b) of the 1987 Act, and that maintenance of public roads does not fall within any of those categories.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Setting aside of the PLA’s order dated 10.01.2025
- Direction to the PLA to adjudicate the claim on merits
- Alternatively, a declaration that the period of pendency before the PLA shall be excluded from limitation for any future filing in a civil court
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the maintenance of a public road constitutes a "service" within the meaning of Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, thereby bringing disputes arising from defective road conditions within the jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the PLA had kept the matter pending for over five years without adjudication, creating a de facto denial of justice. They contended that the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds at such a late stage, without prior notice or opportunity to amend, was arbitrary. They relied on the principle of equitable estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, urging the Court to treat the pendency before the PLA as tolling limitation for any subsequent civil suit.
For the Respondent
The Deputy Advocate General for Haryana submitted that the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats is strictly statutory and limited to the services listed under Section 22A(b), which include public utility services such as transport, banking, insurance, and telecommunications. Maintenance of public roads, even if negligent, does not fall under any of these enumerated categories. The PLA correctly declined jurisdiction, as it cannot expand its mandate beyond the express terms of the statute.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, which defines the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats as extending only to disputes relating to "any public utility service" as may be notified by the Central or State Government. The Court noted that no notification has been issued by either government bringing road maintenance within the scope of "public utility service" under this provision.
"The jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat is confined to services prescribed under Section 22A(b) of the 1987 Act. Maintenance of public roads does not fall within any of the enumerated categories, nor has it been notified as such."
The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ legitimate concern regarding limitation, noting that the PLA’s prolonged inaction - spanning over five years - created a situation where the petitioners might now be barred from approaching a civil court. However, the Court emphasized that jurisdiction is a threshold issue: no court, tribunal, or forum can adjudicate a matter beyond its statutory mandate, regardless of delay or hardship.
The Court further held that while the PLA acted correctly in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners’ apprehension about limitation is not without merit. To prevent injustice, the Court explicitly clarified that any future filing in a court of competent jurisdiction shall be entitled to exclude the period during which the petition was pending before the PLA.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The order dated 10.01.2025 of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal, is set aside on the ground that it failed to address the petitioners’ request for exclusion of limitation period
- The petitioners are at liberty to file a civil suit for compensation in a court of competent jurisdiction
- The period of pendency of the petition before the PLA (from filing until 10.01.2025) shall be excluded from the limitation period for any such suit
- All pending applications are disposed of
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Limits of PLA Are Absolute
- Practitioners must verify whether a dispute falls within the notified list of "public utility services" under Section 22A(b) before filing before a PLA
- Claims involving roads, drainage, or municipal infrastructure cannot be entertained by PLA unless specifically notified
- Filing before PLA in such cases results in procedural delay without remedy
Pendency Before PLA Can Toll Limitation
- Courts will now recognize the period of pendency before a PLA as excludable from limitation if the PLA lacks jurisdiction
- This protects litigants from being penalized for forum misplacement
- Advocates should plead this exclusion explicitly in subsequent civil suits
Procedural Fairness Requires Early Jurisdictional Notice
- Forums must raise jurisdictional objections at the earliest stage, not after years of delay
- Delayed dismissal on jurisdictional grounds without opportunity to amend may attract judicial intervention
- Courts may now treat such delays as grounds for excluding limitation, even if the forum lacked jurisdiction
