ABUL HASSAN Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petitioner, Shri Abdul Hassan, filed the instant petition for restoration of electricity at his premises which was disconnected by the Delhi Vidyut Board (for short "DVB") on account of non-payment of the bill amounting to Rs.7,06,992.05 raised by the DVB against him. The action of the DVB has been challenged as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and unreasonable. Similar challenges as raised by the original petitioner are raised every now and then by scores of litigants. The grievances of the citizens are not only confined to the DVB but are also directed against State agencies like, Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, General Insurance Corporation of India and other bodies. Besides, the State and its various departments and instrumentalities are parties in a very large number of cases. Because of the ever increasing number of cases the court system is under great pressure. Therefore, if there was at the threshold a permanent mechanism or machinery to settle the matters at a pre-trial stage, many matters would not find their way to the courts. Similarly, if there was a permanent forum to which pending matters could be referred by the courts for settlement, the load of cases could be taken off the courts. In order to reduce the heavy demand on court time, cases must be resolved by resorting to alternative dispute resolution methods before they enter the portals of court and even after they have so entered. One such alternative dispute resolution system which has shown encouraging results is the system of Lok Adalats. As per the statistical information, available from July 1998 issue of 'Nyaydeep', approximately 22,452 Lok Adalats were organised all over the country till March 31, 1998. In these Lok Adalats about 66,28,270 cases were disposed of. In view of the great potential of Lok Adalats in finding solutions by settlement the Parliament by enacting the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') has conferred legitimisation and recognition to the Lok Adalat system. It seems to me that since the State and its instrumentalities have the largest number of cases instituted by and against them in various level of courts, permanent Lok Adalats ought to be established in each of the departments or group of departments of the State and its instrumentalities where serving or retired judicial officers could man the Lok Adalats for quick disposal of matters by reconciliation. With this in view, on October 13, 1998 court notices were directed to be issued to the National Legal Services Authority (for short 'the NALSA') and the Delhi State Legal Services Authority. It is heartening to note that on October 15, 1998 the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the learned counsel for the DVB, on instructions, readily agreed to abide by the directions for establishing a permanent Lok Adalat for dealing with the cases in which DVB is a party. On October 28, 1998 notices were also directed to be issued to the DDA, MCD, MTNL and GIC in order to elicit their views with regard to the setting up of permanent Lok Adalats for resolution of the cases in which they are parties in the various Courts. On the said date, only the State Legal Services Authority and Delhi Administration were present. On November 5, 1998 fresh notices were directed to be issued to the absentee noticees. On December 8, 1998 learned senior counsel for the NALSA, learned counsel for the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, and learned counsel for other noticees were heard with regard to the question of setting up and establishing permanent Lok Adalats. While Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel for the NALSA, came out in support of the view favouring setting up of the Lok Adalats for DVB, MCD, NDMC, DDA, GIC, MTNL and various departments of the Government, Mr.V.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the D.D.A., and Mr. Arjan K. Sikri, learned senior counsel for the M.T.N.L., did not react favourably to the idea of setting up permanent Lok Adalats under 'the Act'.

(2.) There cannot be two opinions that there is a litigation explosion. Courts are clogged with cases. There is a serious problem of overcrowding of dockets. Seekers of justice are in millions and it is becoming rather difficult for the Courts to cope up with the ever increasing cases with the present infrastructure and manpower. There is need for decentralisation of justice. Two years hence we will be in the next millennium but we are still trying to cope up with the gigantic mass of cases. We have inherited a colonial legal system. It is of victorian era which must undergo a metamorphosis to fit in with the changing times. If innovative approaches for dispute resolution are not resorted to, the justice delivery system will crumble under the weight of Court cases.

(3.) Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provides for equal justice and free legal aid. It states as under:- "The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities."