Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 575
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Kerala Legal Services Authority – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 8140 of 2022
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Roshen D. Alexander, Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan.
For the Respondents: Ebin Mathew, Deepu Lal Mohan, Alex M. Thombra.
The judgment underscores that statutory bodies like Legal Services Authorities have locus standi to initiate public interest litigations for effectuating public good and protecting public interest.
Headnote:Legal Services Authority - Public Interest Litigation - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 6, Section 7 - The court discussed the functions and responsibilities of the State Legal Services Authority as a statutory body under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It emphasized that the petitioner had the locus to initiate public interest litigation for effectuating public good and protecting public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The Kerala State Legal Services Authority filed a writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation seeking immediate reconstruction of a bridge connecting two Grama Panchayats due to its destruction in a flood. The authorities failed to take necessary action despite budget allocations.Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had the locus to maintain the public interest litigation. As subsequent developments indicated no necessity for adjudication on merits, the respondents were directed to commence and complete the construction of the bridge within a specified time frame.Issues:
The issues revolved around the failure of authorities to reconstruct a bridge despite budget allocations and representations from local residents, leading to inconvenience and affecting daily life.Ratio Decidendi:
The Court emphasized that as a statutory authority constituted under an Act, the petitioner had the right to initiate public interest litigation for effectuating public good and protecting public interest.Final Decision:
The Court directed respondents to commence and complete construction of the bridge within a specified time frame. It also ordered regular action taken reports from concerned authorities.JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the afore captioned W.P. (C), are as follows:
“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents 1 to 4 to immediately reconstruct Venthodampadi - Muthanthandu bridge in a time bound manner within a period fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction directing that delay occurred I reconstructing Venthodampadi - Muthanthandu bridge due to the inaction at various levels of governance is violative of the rights of the citizen under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
2. Heard Sri. Roshen D. Alexander, learned Advocate, instructed by Smt. Tina Alex Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Alex M. Thombra, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for official respondents 1 to 5 & Additional respondent No. 9, Sri. Ebin Mathew, learned Advocate, appearing for R-7 (Kallikavu Grama Panchayat), and Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for R-8 (Chokkad Grama Panchayat). Though notice has been duly served on R-6 (The District Panchayat, Malappuram), the said party has not entered appearance.
3. A State Legal Services Authority, like the petitioner Kerala State Legal Services Authority, is constituted under Section 6 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. As per section 6(2)(a), the Chief Justice of the High Court shall be the Patron-in-Chief of the State Legal Services Authority. By virtue of section 6(2)(b), a serving or retired judge of the High Court shall be the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority. He shall be nominated by the Governor, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Further, by virtue of Section 6(2)(c), State Authority shall consist of such number of other members, possessing such experience and qualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government, to be nominated by the Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. As per Section 2(1)(f), “prescribed” means prescribed by the rules made under the Act.
4. As far as the National Legal Services Authority is concerned, Section 3(2)(a) states that the Chief Justice of India shall be the Patron-in-Chief and as per Section 3(2)(b), a serving or retired judge of the Supreme Court, nominated by the President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, shall be the Executive Chairman. Section 4 of the Act details the functions of the Central Authority, whereas Section 7 states the functions of the State Authority. As per Section 4(d) of the Act, the Central Authority shall take necessary steps, by way of social justice litigation, on matters of special concern to the weaker sections of the society.
5. Section 7 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 details the functions of State Authority which is extracted as follows:
“7. Functions of the State Authority:
(1) It shall be the duty of the State Authority to give to effect to the policy and directions of the Central Authority.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the functions referred to in sub-section (1), the State Authority shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:
(a) give legal service to persons who satisfy the criteria laid down under this Act.
(b) conduct Lok Adalats, including Lok Adalats for High Court cases.
(c) undertake preventive and strategic legal aid programmes.
(d) perform such other functions as the State Authority may, in consultation with the Central Authority, fix by regulations.”
6. So, by virtue of Section 7(2)(a) of the Act, the State Authority shall give legal service to persons who satisfy the criteria laid down under the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. As per Section 2(c) “legal service” includes rendering of any service, in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding, before any court or o
