THIMMYYA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order at Annexure 'G', the order passed by the permanent Lok Adalat at Gulbarga holding that Banking and Financial Institution Services fell in the category of Public Utility Services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and therefore the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint is not maintainable. The respondent-State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 1,29,065/- against the petitioner herein under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioner entered appearance and filed the written statement. He also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the plaintiff in the suit is not a Public Utility Service as defined under the Act. Relying on a notification issued by the Government, which is produced at Annexure 'H', the permanent Lok Adalat has declared that the Banking Institution is a Public Utility Service and therefore, dismissed the application for rejection of plaint. As against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The Parliament in order to achieve the objective enshrined in Article 39-A of the Constitution, insofar as providing free legal aid and for disposal of large number of cases in a summary way under the process of Lok Adalat, has enacted Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The said Act has been amended from time to time. By such amendment, now a provision is made for constitution of permanent Lok Adalat Pre-litigation, Conciliation and Settlement were introduced by Chapter VI-A by Act 37/2002 which came into effect from 11.06.2002. Section 22-A defines what is a 'Permanent Lok Adalat' and what is a 'Public Utility Service.' These Permanent Lok Adalats are established for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Clause (b) of Section 22-A defines what a 'Public Utility Services' is, which reads as under:

(3.) Therefore, for the permanent Lok Adalat to exercise its power under the Act, one of the parties to the proceedings before it, should be a public utility service. The above definition of 'public utility service' does not include Banking Institutions. From the definition of 'Public Utility Services', it is clear that after expressly setting out the six services as Public Utility Services, the definition makers it clear that any services, which the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, may, in the public interest by notification, declare to be public utility service for the purposes of this chapter. The reason why such a power is conferred on Central Government as well as the State Government is though this is a Parliamentary Legislation, if a particular service is under the control of the Central Government, it is the Central Government, which is empowered to include such service as a public utility service. If such a service is under the control of the State Government, it is the State Government, which is empowered to include such service as a public utility service. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification as per Annexure 'H' on 13th March 2008 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act agreeing to include Banking and Financial Institutions in the State for 'Lok Adalat' under the category 'Public Utility Service' for the purpose of Chapter VI-A of Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. The public utility service referred to is, the State Bank of India. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Central Government State Government has no jurisdiction. That is why in the notification, the State Government has explicity stated that they agree to include Banking and Financial institutions in the State for 'Lok Adalat' under the category of public utility service. Therefore, State Bank of India is not an Institution felling under the State. That notification has no application. Central Government has not issued any notification bringing within the definition of 'public utility service', the Banking Institutions. Under these circumstances, Lok Adalat was not justified in entertaining the suit filed by the State Bank of India and Anther erred in holding that because of the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government, Banking Institutions are also brought within the 'public utility service'. From the aforesaid material on record, it is clear that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which is clear from the averments of the plaint itself. Therefore, without any further enquiry, the Lok Adalat ought to have allowed the application and dismissed the suit. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal and requires to be set-aside. Hence, I pass the following order: