IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Proceedings instituted before commencement of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before Fora corresponding to those under Act of 1986 (National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction set for Fora established under Act of 2019.
(2) Repeals or amendments that effect changes in forum would ordinarily affect pending proceedings, unless a contrary intention appears from the repealing or amending statute.
(3) All procedural law is retrospective, unless a contrary legislative intention can be observed.

Analysis of Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) is determined by government notifications issued under Section 22C(1), which empower the Central or State Government to specify the monetary limit (initially capped at rupees one crore, subject to periodic enhancements via notifications). These notifications alter the threshold value of disputes relating to public utility services that the PLA can "entertain." (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) The core issue—whether an enhancement in the notified pecuniary limit (e.g., from ₹10 lakh to ₹25 lakh or ₹1 crore) applies based on the date of cause of action or the date of filing of the application—turns on settled principles of statutory interpretation governing changes to procedural jurisdiction, particularly forum and pecuniary limits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction is Procedural in Nature

• Changes to pecuniary limits, including enhancements via notifications or amendments, fall within the domain of procedural law, akin to alterations in forum. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Procedural laws are presumed retrospective, applying to pending proceedings unless a contrary legislative intention is evident from express words or necessary implication. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The expression "entertain" in jurisdictional provisions (mirroring Section 22C(1)) connotes adjudication on merits and is not confined to the institution stage but extends to proceedings at the time they are taken up for consideration. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) However, this does not override savings for pre-existing proceedings. (!)

2. Applicable Limit Determined by Date of Filing/Institution, Not Cause of Action

• The date of filing/institution of the application governs the applicable pecuniary limit, as it crystallizes the right to pursue the remedy before the designated forum under the law prevailing on that date. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) A validly instituted proceeding before a forum competent under the pre-enhancement limit continues thereunder, unaffected by subsequent notifications increasing the threshold, absent a transfer provision or contrary intent. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The date of cause of action is irrelevant for determining pecuniary jurisdiction, as it pertains to accrual of substantive rights, not procedural competence to entertain disputes. (!) (!) (!) (!) Rights accruing pre-notification (e.g., under old limit) are preserved, and proceedings filed thereon proceed under the notified limit as on the filing date. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Enhancements operate prospectively for fresh filings post-notification but do not mandate transfer of pending applications filed earlier, to avoid dislocation, hardship, and defeat of legislative intent (e.g., expeditious resolution of public utility disputes). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

3. No Vested Right to a Specific Forum; Presumption Against Transfer Absent Contrary Intent

• Litigants have no vested right in a particular forum or unchanged pecuniary limits post-filing; a shift via notification is procedural and retrospective for undisposed matters unless savings clauses (e.g., under General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6) or absence of transfer mechanism indicate otherwise. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Notifications enhancing limits lack express transfer provisions for pending matters, signaling intent to protect pre-notification filings under old limits (similar to transitional/savings mechanisms). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Legislative awareness of pendency and consumer/litigant welfare precludes retrospective uprooting without clear mandate. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

4. Practical Implications and Directions from Precedent

• Pre-enhancement filing (value exceeding old limit but within new): Incompetent; PLA returns application for presentation elsewhere if value exceeded old notified threshold on filing date. (!) (!)
• Post-enhancement filing: Competent if within new limit. (!) (!)
• Pending on enhancement date: Continues under old limit/forum; no automatic transfer, preserving judicial economy and access to justice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Courts direct continuation before original PLA, set aside dismissals for want of jurisdiction post-enhancement, and impose costs for frivolous challenges. (!) (!) (!)

In summary, Supreme Court exposition confirms the pecuniary limit under Section 22C(1) notifications is fixed by the date of filing the application, ensuring procedural stability for instituted disputes while allowing enhancements to apply prospectively to new filings. High Courts align, emphasizing no prejudice from unaltered forum absent explicit transfer intent. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)