SAHOTA PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. CHAIRMAN, PERMANENT LOK ADALAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge to the award passed by Permanent Lok Adalat is that the Electricity Board cannot invoke the provisions of the Permanent Lok Adalat since it is available only for an ordinary consumer. In my view, this argument is wholly erroneous and does not take into account the reason for which the amendment was brought through Chapter VI. The establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat is for deciding the disputes in matters of public utility service and the term 'public utility service' is also defined under Section 22 (A) (b) that includes supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment. The petition filed by the 2nd respondent is competent and no exception could be taken to the same.

(2.) The Permanent Lok Adalat has proceeded to pass an award against the petitioner only on the ground that when a final assessment had been made, the petitioner had not challenged the same in the manner, which is provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and therefore, it had become final. Learned counsel also argues that if there is a separate enactment that governs the rights of parties, there shall be no scope for the Board to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat to initiate proceedings. He would contend that in matters where there is exclusive jurisdiction for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, a petition shall not be filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. In this case, it is not as if the Electricity Board is coming before the Permanent Lok Adalat to justify a levy that it has made. On the other hand, there is already a final assessment of charges that are made against the petitioner and when the petitioner has not availed of any benefit by an appeal under the Act, they have sought to recover the same by approaching to Permanent Lok Adalat. I do not find any error in the approach of the 2nd respondent-Board and the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat would not require any interference.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he should be granted liberty to challenge the final assessment made by the 2nd respondent. If the petitioner has any right of ventilating his grievance in any other forum, he will not be barred from doing so by virtue of this order.