The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central and State Governments are respectively conferred with the power to declare any service provided by them as a public utility service, and the State Government has no power to declare a service as a public utility service if the service is provided by the Central Government, and vice versa.

1. These Writ appeals by State Bank of India are directed against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2013 (reported in ILR 2013 KAR 1037 – Thimmyya v. State Bank of India) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by respondent no.1 by holding that Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('the Act') does not confer any power on the State Government to declare the service provided by Banking and Financial Institutions in the State to be a public utility service for purposes of chapter VIA of the Act and consequently has rejected the application filed by the appellant before the permanent Lok Adalat, Gulbarga under S.22C of the Act for recovery of Rs.1,29,065/- & interest etc. from respondent No.1 and another.

2. The learned Single Judge has held that the Government which controls the service only is empowered under S.22A of the Act to declare that service as a public utility service. The correctness of the said view is challenged by State Bank of India in these appeals. It is relevant to refer to the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in taking the aforesaid view:

"4. Therefore, for the permanent Lok Adalat to exercise its power under the Act, one of the parties to the proceedings before it, should be a public utility service. The above definition of 'public utility service' does not include Banking Institutions. From the definition of 'Public Utility Service', it is clear that after expressly setting out the six services as Public Utility Services, the definition makes it clear that any services, which the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, may, in the Public Interest, by notification, declare to be public utility service for the purposes of this chapter. The reason why such a power is conferred on Central Government as well as the State Government is though this is a Parliamentary Legislation, if a particular service is under the control of the Central Government, it is the Central Government, which is empowered to include such service as a public utility service. If such a service is under the control of the State Government, it is the State Government, which is empowered to include such service as a public utility service.

5. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification as per Annexure 'H' on 13th March 2008 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act agreeing to include Banking and Financial Institutions in the State for 'Lok Adalat' under the category 'Public Utility Service' for the purpose of Chapter VI-A of Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. The public utility service referred to is, the State Bank of India. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. State Government has no jurisdiction. That is why in the notification, the State Government has explicitly stated that they agree to include Banking and Financial institutions in the State for 'Lok Adalat' under the category of public utility service. Therefore, State Bank of India is not an Institution falling under the state. That notification has no application. Central Government has not issued any notification bringing within the definition of 'public utility service', the Banking Institutions. Under these circumstances, Lok Adalat was not justified in entertaining the suit filed by the State Bank of India and further erred in holding that because of the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government, Banking Institutions are also brought within the 'public utility service'. From the aforesaid material on record, it is clear that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which is clear from the averments of the plaint itself. Therefore, without any further enquiry, the Lok Adalat ought to have allowed the application and dismissed the suit. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal and requires to be set-aside.........."

(Underlining supplied)

3. Before p