1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (227^ N0. ^^ of 2008 PETITIONERS 1. ^^5 fc€&^^ •t^< ^5^ ^^ ..-• ^•-•"" ^'^f^^i'y^ i- Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division Tifra Bilaspur C.G. Junior Engineer (R) CSEB Sub station Takhatpur District Bilaspur C.G. ••^r^'T Vs RESPONDENTS ^ 1. Public utility permanent Lokadalat Bilaspur C.G 2'r'Vinod Shrivash S/o Pardeshi Shrivash Aged About 39 years. 3. Smt. Bhagwateen Bai W/o Vinod Shrivash Aged about 36 years. ( Bothare R/o Karhi , Th. + P.S. Takhatpur, post Belsari District- Bilaspur C.G. ) 4. Rajendra Singh Raj S/o Devendra Singh, Village Khapri, post Belsari, P.S. = Th. Takhatpur District Bilaspur C.G. WRIT PETITCON UNbER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTCON OF INNA .L /1-FA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR S.B : HON*BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONERS Writ Petition (2271 No.6728/2008 Superintending Engineer CSEB. Bilaspur Division & another RESPONDENTS Versus Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur & Ors. And PETITIONERS WritPetition (227) No.5470/2008 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Ors. Versus ; RESPONDENT Dhannu Yadav O RD B R /A POST ON^ APRIL, 2011 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^ i ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: HON»BLESHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONERS Writ Petition (2271 No.6728/2008 Superintending Engineer CSEB Bilaspur Division & another RESPONDENTS Versus Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur & Ors. Appearance: Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondents No, 2 & 3. PETITIONERS And Writ Petition {227} No.5470/2008 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Ors. Versus RESPONDENT Dhannu Yadav Petitions u/A 227 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Passedon /> .04.2011) 1. By this common order, the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of, ascommon question of law arises for consideration in these petitions. ./ |»»NNN» -2- 2. W.P. (227) No.5470/08 has been filed to assail the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur.An application was filed by respondents 2 & 3 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (for short "the P.L.A.") on 24.9.2007 for grant of compensation of Rs.2 lacs on account of death of Ku. Mana alias Kunti, daughter of the claimants, who died due to electrocution by coming in contact with a broken wire of electricity, which fell upon deceased- Ku. Mana while she was taking ba.th in an open canal. The claim of respondents No. 2 & 3 was denied by the petitioners. The P.L.A. framed various issues. An additional issue was framed by the P.L.A. at the instance of one of its learned member, as to whether the P.L.A. had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Lok Adalat held that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and grant compensation to respondents 2 & 3 on account of death of their daughter due to electrocution, as the accident was caused in the course of supply of electricity by an establishment. 3. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition have challenged the aforesaid order of the P.L.A. on the sole ground that the P.L.A. had no jurisdiction under the law to entertain a dispute of such a nature where claim for compensation based on tortious liability is raised, as the dispute does not relate to any public utility service and it is not a case where the consumer of electricity has claimed any compensation arising out of any dispute concerning of services or touching any matter relating to providing ser^ice, but ^:1 ^^ ^ fl.. -3- is a case of accident, resulting in death of a person who did not stand in the capacity of recipient of service or consumer of electricity and the only remedy available to respondents 2 & 3 is to file a regular civil suit claiming compensation. 4. W.P. (227) No.5470/08 has been filed by the then existmg Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, aggrieved by an order passed by the P.L.A., Bilaspur on 14th July, 2008, by which, compensation has been awarded to the claimant on account of death of his cattle by electrocution. In this case also, the claimant's cattle came in contact with the electricity pole and the cattle died. The claimant submitted application on 15.10.2006 before the P.L.A., claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- against the petitioner. While denying the claim of the claimant, the petitioners, in this petition raised a specific objection with regard to the jurisdiction of P.L.A. by making similar submissions before the P.L.A. as has been raised in the other writ petition. The P.L.A. decided the issue relating to jurisdiction against the petitioners holding that as the cattle of the claimant died by coming into contact with the electricity pole, the claimant is entitled to compensation, as the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioners and the death of cattle took place during the course of operation of electricity supply. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions raised an important question for determination of this Court and that is- whether the P.L.A. constituted under Section 22 B of the I 1 '^. ~. .// via,. %S^iy "•^tey^ -4- ^ ^ Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as <(the Act of 1987V) had jurisdiction to entertain a claimfor compensation based on tortious Uability which are un-connected with service?. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions vehemently argued to contend that the statutory scheme engrafted under Chapter - VI A of the Act of 1987 did not intend to confer any plenary jurisdiction like a civil Court to entertain any claim for compensation based on tortious liability merely because the accident was an outcome of alleged negligence on the part of one who was engaged in providing public utility services as defined under Section 22 A (b) of the Act of 1987, unless the dispute essentially related to service as between the claimant and the service provider. In other words, the provisions contained in Section 22 B of the Act of 1987 intended to confer limited jurisdiction, though of vide amplitude, on the P.L.A., only in respect of specified public utility service i.e. to draw conciliation proceedings in the matter of a dispute as between the service provider and service recipient touching upon and connected with the service and to adjudicate in the event of failure of conciliation proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions further argued that the object behind constitution of P.L.A. is to mainly make an attempt for conciliation and amicable settlement of dispute between the parties and unless both the parties give their consent, the P.L.A. constituted under Section 22 B of the Act of 1987 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the ^\ !. 'v^.^.^' ^' -5- 5 '.? dispute in the garb of power conferred under Section 22 C (8) of the Act of 1987. In order to buttress their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Ajay Sinha & Anr.1, decision of high Court of Kerala in the cases of M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sabharathnani (% Sabha Rathinam. & Ors.2, Bhoopesh Vs. M/s, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. TVPM3, decision of High Court ofJharkhand in the cases of' Branch Manaeer, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. East Singhbhuin and another Vs. Mrs. Bandana Devi4, 8& Bharat Sanchar Nieam Limited, Ranchi^Vs. Chedi Ram Ganjhu & Ors.5. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents in both the cases supported the order passed by the P.L.A., by contending that the P.L.A. has been conferred wide jurisdiction and looking to the objective and purpose behind enactment of the Act of 1987, and, in particular, object and purpose of pre- litigation conciliation and settlement under newly introduced Chapter VI A inserted by the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 37 of 2002), the provision contained in Section 22 B ofthe Act of 1987 which confer jurisdiction on the Lok Adalat, seek to conferjurisdiction, in widest amplitude, to not only draw conciliation proceedings in all kinds of disputes, but i (2008) 7 SCC 454 2 WP(C) No.30059/08(C) decided on llth Nov.2008 3 W.A. No.316/09 decided on 10.8.2009 4 W.P. (S) No.2557/08 decided.on 25»hFebruaiy, 2010 5 W.P. (C) No.684/09 decided on 6^ May, 2010 </ -6- |N"IIIIIW also to adjudicate, in the event of failure of an agreement, disputes of any other nature whatsoever which involve a service provider in respect ofpublic utility service as meant in Section 22 A (b) of the Act of 1987. They submitted that the provision contained in Section 22 B of the Act of 1987 is required to be construed liberally so as to advance the object and purpose of the Act of 1987 and, therefore, it is not necessary that the dispute must necessarily involve service provider and service recipient. It is their contention that the P.L.A. has wide jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute, wherein, a claim based on tortious liability is raised and compensation is claimed on account of any accident due to operation of public utility service. Relinace has been placed on the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Asst. Manager Vs. Vijay Kuniar Sharma and ors6 and decision of Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. New India Assurance Conip. Ltd. (Supra). 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The issue which falls for determination in the batch of petitions requires examination of the statutory scheme of the Act of 1987, object and purpose behind such enactment with more advertence to the object and purpose behind inclusion of a new Chapter VI A by amending Act namely, the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 37 of 2002), providing for 6 AIR 2008 Jhar.14, decided on 10.5.2007 ^" :.-^'i:. -7- c •t^ establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat and jurisdiction thereof under Section 22 B of the Act of 1987. nll»ri1N| 9. The statutory scheme of the Act of 1987 and that of newly intrtfduced Chapter VI A, providing for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement, came-up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Sinha (supra). The provision contained in Chapter VI A providing for establishment of P.L.A. and jurisdiction thereofwere also examined. It was held as under : "24. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, was enacted to promote resolution of disputes through mutual settlement. Chapter VI-A of the Act seeks to achieve a different purpose. It not only speaks of conciliation qua conciliation but conciliation qua determination. Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat, although is limited but they are ofwide amplitude. The two provisos appended to Section 22-C(1) of the Act curtail the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat which are as under: "Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter "where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: 25. Chapter VI-A stands independently. Whereas the heading of the Chapter talks of pre-litigation, conciliation and settlement, Section 22-C(8) of the Act speaks of determination. It creates another adjudicatory authority, the decision of which by a legal fiction would be a decision of a civil court. It has the right to decide a -8- ^\ case. The term "decide?? means to determine; to form a definite opinion; to render judgment. (See Aduanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., 2005 at p. 1253.) Any award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat is executable as a decree. No appeal thereagainst shall lie. The decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties. Whereas on the one hand, keeping in view the parliamentary intent, settlement of all disputes through negotiation, conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalat and judicial settlement are required to be encouraged, it is equally well settled that where the jurisdiction of a court is sought to be taken away, the statutory provisions deserve strict construction. A balance is thus required to be struck. A court of law can be created under a statute. It must have the requisite infrastructure therefor. Independence and impartiality of Tribunal being a part of human right is required to be taken into consideration for construction of such a provision, When a court is created, the incumbents must be eligible to determine the lis. 26. An option is given to any party to a dispute. It may be a public utility service provider or a public utility service recipient. The service must have some relation with public utility. Ordinarily, insurance service would not come within the public utility service. But having regard to the statutory scheme, it must be held to be included thereunder. It is one thing to say that an authority is created under a statute to bring about a settlement through alternate dispute resolution mechanism but it is another thing to say that an adjudicatory power is conferred on it. Chapter VI-A, therefore, in our opinion, deserves a closer scrutiny. In a case of this nature, the level of scrutiny must also be ^':3?S s &,-,-. l^ -9- high. [See Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India. (2008) 3 SCC 1)]. 27. Sub-section (1) ofSection 22-C speaks of settlement of disputes. The authority has to take recourse to conciliation mechanism. One of the essential ingredients of the conciliation proceeding is that nobody shall be forced to take part therein. It has to be voluntary in nature. The proceedings are akin to one of the recognised ADR mechanism which is made of Medola. It may be treated on a par with conciliation and arbitration. In such a case the parties agree for settlement of dispute by negotiation, conciliation or mediation. The proceedings adopted are not binding ones, whereas the arbitration is a binding procedure. Even in relation to arbitration, an award can be the subject-matter of challenge. The provisions of the Arbifration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply thereto. The jurisdiction in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is wide. The court in exercise of the said jurisdiction may not enter into the merit of the case but would be entitled to consider as to whether the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct. If he is found to be biased, his award would be set aside. The scope of voluntary settlement through the mechanism of conciliation is also limited. If the parties in such a case can agree to come to settlement in relation to the principal issues, no exception can be taken thereto as the parties have a right of self-determination of the forum, which shall help them to resolve the conflict, but when it comes to some formal differences between the parties, they may leave the matter to the jurisdiction of the conciliator. 1 % 1 :^g?.^ 1 ^, ^;M&:^e, I/ '"^. '%sw-y ^•Sfei-^L.'-^" -10- ^ The conciliator only at the final stage of the proceedings would adopt the role of an arbitrator. 28. Here, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat does not simply adopt the role of an arbitrator whose award could be the subject-matter of challenge but also the role of an adjudicator. Parliament has given the authority to the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the matter. It has an adjudicating role to play. 39. What is important to note is that with respect to public utility ser^ices, the main purpose behind Section 22-C(8) seems to be that "most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular courts would be settled in the pre-litigation stage itself'. 41. We must guard against construction of a statute which would confer such a wide power in the Permanent Lok Adalat having regard to sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act. The Permanent Lok Adalat must at the outset formulate the questions. We, however, do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that Permanent Lok Adalat would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain such cases but emphasise that it must exercise its power with due care and caution. It must not give an impression to any of the disputants that it, from the very beginning has an adjudicatory role to play in relation to its jurisdiction without going into the statutory provisions and restrictions imposed thereunder.?? 10. Section 22 B provides for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat and the same being relevant for the present case is extracted herein below: .^^. '-•^-'A^-''' -11 - c<\ INNNI^ f'\. (<22-B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) xxx A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the P.L.A. constituted by notification of the Central Authority or the State Authority may be established at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Thus, the Permanent Lok Adalats could exercise such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services as may be specified in the notification. It has not been disputed before this Court that vide notification dated 11th January, 2007, the Chhattisgarh Legal Services Authority, in exercise <of power conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section 22 B of the Act of 1987, established Permanent Lok Adalats at specified placed for specified area and in respect of public utility services as specified in Section 22 A of the Act of 1987. Therefore, by virtue of the provision contained in Section 22 B of the Act of 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalats established by notification dated 11th January, 2007 could exercise jurisdiction in respect of all the public utility services as meant under Section 22 A (b) of the Act /^^ -12- ^ of 1987. The jurisdiction of the Public Utility Permanent Lok Adalat is essentially in respect of specified public utility services. 11. The Pennanent Lok Adalats constituted and established under Section 22B of the Act of 1987 are not Courts of plenary jurisdiction or general jurisdiction like civil Courts, but such Permanent Lok Adalats exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services. Legislature intention behind enacting afor exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services" has to be primarily gathered from the language of the statute itself in the background of the objects and reasons. The stateinent of objects and reasons behind enactment of Section 22 A, 22 B, 22 C, 22D & 22E by introducing an altogether new Chapter VI A by Amendment Act No.36 of 2002 as contained in the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Bill, 2002 read thus: "The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute legal services authorities for providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice were not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system pronioted justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The system of Lok Adalat, which is an innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, has proved effective for resolving disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the courts. -13- ^ 2. However, the major drawback in the existing scheme of organization of the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the said Act is that the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on compromise or settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the court of law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a Court of law. This causes unnecessary delay in the dispensation ofjustice. If Lok Adalats are given power to decide the cases on merits in case parties fails to arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem can be tackled to a great extent. Further, the cases which arise in relation to public utility services such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Vidyut Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular courts would be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself which would result in reducing the workload of the regular courts to a great extent. It is therefore, proposed to amend the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to set up Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre-litigative mechanisni for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public utility survives.?? 12. One of the salient features of the proposed legislation by way of amendment stated, is : "3. The salient features ofproposed legislation are as follows: (i) x x x (ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility ^- v^ ••^ ^ ^ ^ .^.^i' ^^^^ hm"l"wm< -14- c'^ services such as transport services of passengers or goods by air, road and water, postal, telegraph or telephone services, supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment, public conservancy of sanitation, services in hospitals or dispensaries; and insurance services.?? 13. It is well settled that the statement of objects and reasons accompanying a Bill can be used for the limited purposes of understanding the background and the antecedents, state of affairs, leading to the legislation, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aswinl Kumar Ghpse and another Vs. Arabinda Bose and another7, State of W.B. Vs. Union of India8 and catena of decisions. Summering the use of statements of objects and reasons, in the process of construction, in the case of Bhaiji Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Thandla9, the Supreme Court laid down that reference to the statenient of objects and reasons is permissible for understanding the background, to understand state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. The statement of objects and reasons behind introducing Chapter VI A containing Section 22 A to 22 E reveal that the new scheme of establishment of P.L.As was introduced in order to give power to Lok Adalats to decide the cases on merits in the eventuality of failure of agreement. Moreover, the statement of objects and reasons stated that the case which arise in relation to 7AIR 1952 SC 369 SAIR 1963 SC 1241 ^ (2003) 1 SCC 692 -15- c -'? "Niai^. public utility service need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be settled at the pre-litigation stage itself, which would result in reducing the workload of the regular Courts to a great extent and it was, therefore, proposed to amend the Act of 1987 to set-up Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre-litigation mechanism of conciliation and settlenient of cases relating to public utility services. Clause 3 (ii) of the Statement of Objects & Reasons dealing with the salient features of the proposed Legislation, seeking to amend the Act of 1987, further reiterated that the P.L.A shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services such as transport services of passengers or goods or by air, road and water, postal, telegraph or telephone services, supply of power, light or water to the public by an establishment, public conservancy or sanitation, services of hospitals and dispensaries and insurance service. In the aforesaid background of Legislation,