The court established that disputes related to mobile tower installations are not within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat as they do not constitute 'public utility service' under the Act.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The issues involved in this petition are '(1) Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding installation of mobile tower? & (2) Whether installation or removal of mobile tower is covered by the definition of 'public utility service', as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987')?' It is in the above background, the issues involved in this petition are required to be considered by this Court.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to annul the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the PLA') by which a direction has been issued to the Deputy Commissioner and Enforcement Officer of the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the JDA') to seize the mobile tower, installed at the site in question and dismantle the same within 15 days and recover the amount of expenses incurred in the above process from the petitioner and a further direction has been issued to the JDA to submit the compliance report of the order dated 29.05.2023 till 30.06.2023.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order and directions issued by the PLA, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing this petition within the following prayer:-

'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may most graciously be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and further:

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dt. 29.05.2023, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur in Complaint No. 308/2022, may be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the preliminary objections and reply filed by the petitioner, may kindly be accepted and the application filed by the Respondent No.1. Application may kindly be dismissed as not maintainable;

(iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the entire proceedings of Complaint No. 308/2022 may be quashed and set aside.

(iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(v) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.'

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:

4. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the PLA. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a mobile tower was installed by the petitioner-company on the site in question way back in the year 2014 and after a lapse of more than 8 years, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint for removal of the same. Counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioner is time barred because the tower was installed in the year 2014 whereas the application for removal of tower was submitted in the year 2022. Counsel further submits that with regard to redressal of the aforesaid grievance, the respondent No.1 approached the District Telecom Committee as per the clause 15(4) of the order dated 06.02.2017 issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing. Counsel submits that when the respondent No.1 already availed the alternative remedy, there was no reason and occasion available with him to file a complaint under Section 22C of the Act of 1987. Counsel submits that the aforesaid complaint filed by the respondent No.1 was not maintainable before the PLA as the issue involved in the complaint does not fall within the purview of 'public utility service', as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987. Counsel submits that the matter was posted before the Lok Adalat for reconciliation proceedings and reconciliation in the matter was not possible, so on the fateful day, i.e. 12.04.2023, the petitioner sought time to lead evidence in support of his contentions. Counsel submits that without granting any opportunity to lead the evidence the complaint was deci