2012 (9) TMI 666 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - provision of Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides that where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute - the words members of the Lok Adalats were substituted by the words members of the Lok Adalats or the persons constituting Permanent Lok Adalats - Held that - The establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats and conferring them jurisdiction upto a specific pecuniary limit in respect of one or more public utility services as defined in Section 22-A(b) before the dispute is brought before any court by any party to the dispute is not anathema to the rule of law. Instead of ordinary civil courts, if other institutional mechanisms are set up or arrangements are made by the Parliament with an adjudicatory power, in our view, such institutional mechanisms or arrangements cannot be faulted on the ground of arbitrariness or irrationality - if at all a party to the dispute has a grievance against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat he can always approach the High Court under its supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that situation the burden of litigation would be brought back on the High Courts after the award is passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on merits. There is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that the service provider may pre-empt the consideration of a dispute by a court or a forum under special statute by approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat established under Chapter VI-A of the 1987 Act and, thus, depriving the user or consumer of such public utility service of an opportunity to have the dispute adjudicated by a civil court or a forum created under special statute. In the first place, the jurisdiction of fora created under the Special Statutes has not been taken away in any manner whatsoever by the impugned provisions. The Permanent Lok Adalats are in addition to and not in derogation of fora provided under Special Statutes. Secondly, not a single instance has been cited where a provider of service of public utility in a dispute with its user has approached the Permanent Lok Adalat first. The submission is unfounded and misplaced. The whole idea of having non-judicial members in a tribunal like Permanent Lok Adalat is to make sure that the legal technicalities do not get paramountcy in conciliation or adjudicatory proceedings. The fact that a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22-B comprises of one judicial officer and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service does not show any abhorrence to the rule of law nor such composition becomes violative of principles of fairness and justice or is contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - It is true that the award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under 1987 Act has to be by majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. In a given case, it may be that the two non-judicial members disagree with the judicial member but that does not mean that such majority decision lacks in fairness or sense of justice It is against public policy and well defined principles of judicial discretion to entertain or hear petitions relating to same subject matter where the matter was heard and dismissed on an earlier occasion - Writ dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 22-A, 22-B, 22-C, 22-D, and 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as amended by the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002.
2. Alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats vis-`a-vis specialized courts/tribunals.
4. Finality and binding nature of awards by Permanent Lok Adalats without a right to appeal.
5. Composition and independence of Permanent Lok Adalats.
6. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act to Permanent Lok Adalats.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Sections 22-A to 22-E:
The Bar Council of India challenged the vires of Sections 22-A to 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended in 2002. These provisions introduced the concept of Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs) for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement of disputes related to public utility services. The Supreme Court examined the objectives behind these amendments, noting that they were intended to provide an affordable, speedy, and efficient mechanism to secure justice, particularly for disputes involving public utility services.

2. Alleged Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner argued that the impugned provisions were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court observed that the establishment of PLAs and the conferring of jurisdiction upon them were not contrary to the rule of law. The Court emphasized that Parliament could set up alternative institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution, which could be more efficacious than ordinary judicial courts. The Court found no merit in the argument that the provisions were arbitrary or irrational.

3. Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats vis-`a-vis Specialized Courts/Tribunals:
The petitioner contended that the jurisdiction conferred upon PLAs could oust the jurisdiction of specialized courts/tribunals under statutes like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, and the Insurance Act, 1938. The Court clarified that the PLAs were in addition to, and not in derogation of, the fora provided under these specialized statutes. The Court noted that the PLAs were intended to resolve disputes at the pre-litigation stage, thereby reducing the workload of regular courts.

4. Finality and Binding Nature of Awards by Permanent Lok Adalats Without a Right to Appeal:
The petitioner argued that the finality and binding nature of awards made by PLAs, without a right to appeal, were unconstitutional. The Court held that there is no inherent right of appeal and that appeal is always a creature of statute. The Court noted that the absence of an appellate mechanism did not render the provisions unconstitutional, as parties could still approach the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

5. Composition and Independence of Permanent Lok Adalats:
Concerns were raised about the composition of PLAs, which include one judicial member and two administrative members. The petitioner argued that this preponderance of administrative members could compromise the independence and fairness of PLAs. The Court found that the composition of PLAs, with a judicial officer as the Chairman and two members with experience in public utility services, did not violate principles of fairness and justice. The Court emphasized that the appointment of members was done on the recommendation of high-powered authorities, ensuring the independence of PLAs.

6. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act to Permanent Lok Adalats:
The petitioner argued that the PLAs' exemption from following the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act compromised the quality of justice. The Court held that the PLAs were required to follow principles of natural justice and fairness, and their decisions were guided by a sense of justice and equity. The Court found no compromise on the quality of dispute resolution due to the procedural exemptions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sections 22-A to 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended by the 2002 Amendment Act. The Court found no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the PLAs provided an effective alternative mechanism for the speedy and efficient resolution of disputes related to public utility services, in line with the objectives of Article 39-A of the Constitution.