KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in the writ petition is the competency of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate on a dispute which the Electricity Board pursued by terming the act of the petitioner as constituting a theft of electricity and that justified levy of penalty and recovery of Rs.70,090/-. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that Permanent Lok Adalat which is constituted under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authority Act does not have a power to entertain any dispute which constitutes a non-compoundable offence. The language of Section 22(8)(c) reads as follows:22-C(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.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Electricity Board would contend that the Electricity Act constitutes certain acts as punishable as offence as well as make the persons liable for penalties levied under part XIV of the Electricity Act. It also makes provision for assessment of a provisional levy and finalize the same. If such a final assessment is made, then as per the directions of Section 22-A, the electricity services being a public utility service, the electricity board would be competent to invoke the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act and secure the reliefs. Learned counsel also refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand, 2011 3 RCR(Civ) 666 in support of his contention that the Permanent Lok Adalat would have such a jurisdiction. I have examined the decision which dealt with a situation of a dispute involving a low cost air services. The claim was in relation to some damages for 11 hours delay caused by the Aircraft. Learned counsel would refer me to the paragraph in Section 16 that deals with the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. In particular learned counsel would lay stress on the following:The Lok Adalats are authorized to deal with and decide only disputes relating to service rendered by notified public utility services provided the value does not exceed Rupees Ten Lakhs and the dispute does not relate to a non-compoundable offence. Section 22D provides that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting the conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the LSA Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(3.) The above extract, clearly brings out that the Permanent Lok Adalat would have competency to decide all the cases notified as Public Utility Services, provided i) the value does not exceed 10 lacs, ii) the dispute does not relate to a non-compoundable offence''. The reasons are obvious. The scheme of the Permanent Lok Adalat itself is an initiative for a settlement of a dispute and only on failure of the initiative, the Permanent Lok Adalat will proceed to render an adjudication: Any matter that is not fit for settlement or in other words that cannot be compounded between the parties, cannot be a matter for settlement at all. The settlement that the Electricity Act itself contemplates is an adjudication in relation to an assessment before a Settlement Committee. Section 151-B of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.