Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Nagamunemma vs The State Of Ap on 24 July, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.366 OF 2019
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Gounipalli Nagamunema W/o Ramachandraiah, challenging the jurisdiction of the second respondent - Permanent Lok-Adalat for Public Utility Services, represented by its Chairman, to entertain PLAC No.286 of 2018 with a request to decide the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok-Adalat to enquire into PLAC No.286 of 2018.
It is alleged that premises bearing D.No.1/513/1 sitauted in Nagarajupet Area of Kadapa City was mortgaged to the petitioner by the then President of the fourth respondent - Panchayatraj IV Class Employees Union, ZP Office, YSR Kadapa District on 06.02.2002 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and handed over possession to the petitioner. As the third respondent tried to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in the year 2011, she filed O.S.No.563 of 2011 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking permanent injunction. The third respondent - Association filed written statement and thereafter failed to produce any evidence. Consequently, the suit was decreed and injunction was granted in favour of this petitioner.
The third respondent - Association made a representation to the District Judge, Kadapa, who in-turn forward the same to the 2 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 second respondent - Permanent Lok-Adalat. The second respondent registered the same as PLAC No.286 of 2018 and issued notice to the petitioner.
It is specifically contended that, as per Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act (for short 'The Act'), a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of -
(i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is
not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized.
At the same time, Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats which contemplates the reference of the matter to the Lok-Adalat in terms of Section 19(5) and cognizance will be taken in cases where the parties agree or in a case where one of the party makes an application to the court for referring the case to the Lok-Adalat where such court prima facie satisfies itself that there are chances of settlement or the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok-Adalat.
As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, anyone of the parties before a court may directly approach the Lok-Adalat and submit an application to the authority or committee organizing the Lok-Adalat which needs to be determined by a Lok-Adalat. The proviso to Section 20(2) stipulates that no matter shall be referred to Lok-Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. Therefore, the jurisdiction of permanent Lok-Adalat 3 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 is limited. But, the second respondent took cognizance on reference made by the District Judge, Kadapa and registered the same as PLAC No.286 of 2018. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41150 of 2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh and the same was disposed of on 15.11.2018 with a direction to the second respondent to strictly act in accordance with the power and jurisdiction consecrated on it under Section 20 of the Act and further directed the second respondent to take corrective steps in following the procedure in matters of similar nature in future. But, the second respondent did not adhere to the direction issued by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.41150 of 2018. Therefore, again this petitioner approached this Court on the same ground that the permanent Lok-Adalat lacks inherent jurisdiction, since, the dispute is with regard to immovable property which was the subject matter of O.S.No.563 of 2011, decreed in favour of this petitioner.
Apart from that, the permanent Lok-Adalat is entitled to take cognizance only the disputes relating to Public Utility Services as defined under the Act. The disputes between the parties i.e. the petitioner and the third respondent is not concerning with Public Utility Services, thereby the permanent Lok-Adalat lacks inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute and requested to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in taking cognizance of the dispute and proceeding to decide PLAC No.286 of 2018 on its file as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and requested to issue a direction to the second respondent to decide the jurisdictional issue in PLAC No.286 of 2018.
4 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 During hearing, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions, while highlighting the directions issued by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.41150 of 2018 and contended that the direction issued by the Court was not followed by the Presiding Officer of the permanent Lok- Adalat and therefore, approached this Court again having no other alternative and requested to pass an order, as claimed by him.
Whereas, at the stage of admission, Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the permanent Lok-Adalat is established to take cognizance of issues relating to Public Utility Services as defined under the Act as amended from time to time and the main aim of the permanent Lok- Adalat is to make an attempt to settle the disputes between the parties, in view of the delay in disposal of the cases by ordinary courts of jurisdiction and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bar Council of India v. Union of India1 and judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd v. Permanent Lok ADalat for Public Utility Services2. Based on the principles laid down in the above two judgments, learned counsel contended that cognizance taken by permanent Lok- Adalat cannot be faulted.
In this context, it is appropriate to advert to Section 22C of the Act, which reads as follow:
(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok 1 2012 Law Suit (SC) 487 2 2017 LawSuit (Hyd) 747
5 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 Adalat for the settlement of dispute: 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: Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it--
a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;
b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok 6 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.
(8) 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.
Section 22D of the Act deals with procedure for Permanent Lok- Adalat. However, the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok-Adalat is always subject to the other provisions contained in the Act. The Permanent Lok-Adalat is constituted only for the purpose of taking cognizance and deciding the disputes relating to Public Utility Services.
7 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 The word "Public Utility Service" is defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act and it means any -
(i) Transport services for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water or
(ii) Postal telegraph or telegraph or telephone service or
(iii) Supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment or
(iv) Postal telegraph or telegraph or telephone service or
(v) Service in hospital or dispensary or
(vi) Insurance service, and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of the Chapter.
Vide Notification No 3306/XXI-B/12 Raipur dt. 26-11-2012 of Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs, (vii) services of banking and other financial institution was added and vide Notification No SO 495(E) dt. 16 February, 2016 of Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India. (viii) supply of any kind of fuel to the public by any establishment, (ix) education or educational institutions, or (x) housing and real estate services, were added to the above list.
But, the dispute before the second respondent is with regard to an immovable property. Such dispute cannot be taken cognizance, in view of the limited power that is conferred on the second respondent.
8 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41150 of 2018 claiming following relief:
"a) Issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the initiation and continuation of the proceedings in PLAC No 286/2018 before the Permanent LokAdalat for Public Utility Services Kadapa as illegal arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently declare the PLAC No 286/2018 and its consequential proceedings as null and void and not maintainable in law and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case or b In the alternative issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the 2nd respondent in any way proceeding to decide PLAC No 286/2018 pending on its file by holding that the 2nd respondent as it lacks inherent jurisdiction to decide the said PLAC and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case or
b) In the alternative issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the 2nd respondent in any way proceeding to decide PLAC No.286 of 2018 pending on its file by holding that the 2nd respondent as it lacks inherent jurisdiction to decide the said PLAC"
Even in the present petition also, the petitioner claimed an identical relief which is extracted hereunder:
"To issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in proceeding to decide the PLAC No.286 of 2018 on its file without deciding the issue of inherent lack of jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to first decide the jurisdiction of the said tribunal in entertaining the said PLAC No.286 of 2018 before proceeding any further and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such further or other orders in the interest of justice."
Despite the direction to limit its jurisdiction by the second respondent, the second respondent did not decide the issue of jurisdiction, more particularly, whether the dispute falls within the definition of 'Public Utility Services' which are included under 9 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 Section 22A(b) of the Act. If, for any reason, the second respondent is permitted to take cognizance and enquire into, it is against the intention of constitution of such Lok-Adalats, since Lok Adalat is not a civil court for all practical purposes. The main aim to establish Permanent Lok-Adalat is to decide such disputes concerning the Public Utility Services. Instead of deciding the issue of jurisdiction, the second respondent allegedly proceeding with the matter calling for written statement etc. When the petitioner raised objection as to the jurisdiction of the second respondent, the second respondent has to decide the jurisdictional issue and if, for any reason, the second respondent found that the disputes does not fall within the ambit of Public Utility Services, the second respondent can close the complaint advising them appropriately and if the second respondent found that the dispute falls within the ambit of Public Utility Services under Section 22A(b) of the Act, then, the second respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 22C of the Act i.e. for taking Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok- Adalat and Procedure of Permanent Lok-Adalat to be followed under Section 22D of the Act.
Further, inspite of directions issued by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.41150 of 2018, for different reasons, the Presiding Officer of the Permanent Lok-Adalat was not inclined to confine to its jurisdiction and it is nothing but violation of direction issued by this Court prima facie. But, atleast to avoid the consequences of such violation, the second respondent is directed to decide the jurisdiction first to take cognizance of the dispute strictly adhering to Section 22A(b) of the Act.
10 HACJ & MSM,J WP_366 of 2019 Therefore, instead of declaring that the second respondent lacks inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute to be decided by the Permanent Lok-Adalat - second respondent herein, we find that it is appropriate to direct the second respondent to decide whether the dispute in PLAC No.286 of 2018 would fall within Public Utility Services or not and pass appropriate orders within thirty days from today.
In the result, writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to decide the inherent jurisdiction strictly in terms of Section 22A(b) and proceed in accordance with law, within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, till then the second respondent shall not proceed further in the matter. Further, the petitioner is directed to furnish copy of the order to the second respondent and the second respondent is directed to act upon such order.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________________ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:24.07.2019 Note: Issue copy by 29.07.2019 b/o SP