Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32795
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THE GENERAL MANGER, TELEPHONES O/O.PGMT, BSNL, KOTTAYAM – Appellant
Versus
SUDHARSANAKUMAR M.R. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12206 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.J.PHILIP
For the Respondents: SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
The Permanent Lok Adalat must follow prescribed conciliation procedures before adjudicating disputes; failures render orders unsustainable and subject to judicial review.
Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 22C(8) - Permanent Lok Adalat - Powers and Procedures - The Permanent Lok Adalat must attempt conciliation before deciding disputes. It cannot proceed to decide merely because a party withdrew from conciliation, fulfilling prior procedural requirements is necessary. (Paras 7-11)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Judicial Review - A writ can be issued to quash unsustainable orders of Permanent Lok Adalats for failure to follow statutory protocols. The Court restores earlier proceedings to ensure they are resolved fairly and in accordance with the law. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a Permanent Lok Adalat order that awarded compensation for service disruption without adhering to proper procedural guidelines specified in the Legal Services Authorities Act. The respondent claimed compensation for inconvenience during the unavailability of phone services.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Permanent Lok Adalat had failed to follow the prescribed statutory procedure, leading to an unsustainable order. The case was remanded for fresh consideration by the Permanent Lok Adalat in accordance with applicable law.
Issues: The issues included whether the Permanent Lok Adalat correctly followed the procedures before adjudicating, particularly the requirements of conciliation as mandated by law.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial authority must ensure that the Permanent Lok Adalat adheres to statutory requirements of conciliation as a precondition for deciding disputes; improper adherence renders the decision liable to be quashed and retried under lawful frameworks.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside, and OP No. 86/2011 restored for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging an award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' compliance with regulations. (Para 3) |
| 3. pla's non-compliance with legal standards. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. greater emphasis on conciliation over adjudication. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“(a) Call for the entire records leading to Ext.P1 the impugned order and peruse the same.
(b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibit P1 order dated 9.2.2012 in OP No. 86/2011 of the Permanent Lok Adalat at Ernakulam and also dismiss Ext.P2 OP No. 86/11 of the 2011 of the Permanent Lok Adalath At Ernakulam in the interest of justice.
(c) Declare that the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide under Section 22C [8] of LSA Act, 1987,as amended in 2002, is subject to consent in writing been given by the parties to the dispute.
(d) To award the cost of the litigation.” [SIC]
2. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath, Ernakulam in OP No. 86/11 instituted by the respondent. The respondent who took the telephone bearing No.04829-264242 on lease from BSNL filed Ext.P1 complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the alleged inconvenience suffered by him contending that his telephone was disrupted from 25.2.2011 to 27.4.2011. He contended that the phone went out of order again on 7.6.2011 and it was restored on 30.06.2011.
3. The respondent again sent a complaint to 2 nd petitioner on 20.07.2011 which was not responded properly, is the submission. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is bound both by the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 . The BNL represented by the petitioners have complied with the above Rule and granted rebate to the respondent for the period that the telephone leased out to him remained unworkable due to the cable fault, is the contention. According to the petitioner, PLA without following the provisions of the Legal Service Authorities Act passed the impugned award and the same is unsustainable is the contention.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the PLA has not followed the provisions of the Legal Service Authorities Act and hence, the impugned award is unsustainable.
6. This Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Consumer Vigilance Centre [ 2022 (2) KLT 476 ] considered the powers of the Legal Service Authorities in detail. It will be better to extract paragraph 7 to 11 of the above judgment.
7. “ In other words the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute only after reaching the following stages mentioned in Section 22C of the Act 1987.
(a) Permanent Lok Adalat is of the opinion that there exist elements of the settlement.
(b) If the Permanent Lok Adalat found that there are elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute.
(c) Thereafter the Permanent Lok Adalat shall give the terms of the possible settlement formulated by it to the parties concerned for their observations.
\(d) If the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub-section
(7) of Section 22C , then only the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute and that also if the dispute does not relate to any offence.
8. So it is clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute only after the above four stages. The Heading of Chapter VIA of the Act 1987 itself says that "PRE-LITIGATION CONCILIATION AND SETTLEMENT". Therefore the enthusiasm of the Permanent Lok Adalat should be to settle the matter through conciliation and not to decide the dispute on merit. For deciding a dispute on merit, first of all, the Permanent Lok Adalat should conduct conciliation as provided in Section 22C (4) and (5) and thereafter if the PLA is of the opin
