TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Sections 22-A to 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as inserted by the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002, were unconstitutional for conferring jurisdiction on Permanent Lok Adalats to conciliate and, on failure of conciliation, adjudicate disputes relating to public utility services without applying the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, making their awards final and binding, and constituting them with judicial and non-judicial members.
Analysis: Chapter VI-A was enacted to create a pre-litigation conciliation and settlement mechanism for disputes concerning public utility services and to provide a speedy, affordable and effective alternative institutional mechanism. The absence of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act did not render the process arbitrary, because the Permanent Lok Adalat was required to act fairly, objectively and in accordance with natural justice. The statute did not exclude the jurisdiction of fora under special enactments; it created an additional remedy and was not in derogation of existing statutory fora. The composition of the Permanent Lok Adalat, with a judicial officer as Chairman and members having experience in public utility services, did not violate fairness or the rule of law. The absence of a statutory appeal also did not invalidate the scheme, since appeal is a creature of statute and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remained available. The Court also treated the earlier dismissal in S.N. Pandey as a merit-based rejection of the same challenge.
Conclusion: The impugned provisions were held to be constitutionally valid and the challenge under Articles 14 and 21 failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
