Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Disputes Related To Installation Of Mobile Tower: Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Reliance Jio
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur on Thursday set aside an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur which issued a direction to the authorities to seize the mobile tower, installed at a site and dismantle the same within 15 days, on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters as the same is not covered by the definition of 'public...
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur on Thursday set aside an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur which issued a direction to the authorities to seize the mobile tower, installed at a site and dismantle the same within 15 days, on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters as the same is not covered by the definition of 'public utility service' under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:
“After perusal of the definition clause of “public utility service” and the judgments of Patna High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute related to installation of mobile tower is not covered by the definition of “public utility service”, as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987, therefore, the PLA has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters and the PLA cannot entertain such complaints.”
The Petitioner (Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.) has challenged the impugned order dated May 29, 2023 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Jaipur Metropolitan by which a direction has been issued to the Deputy Commissioner and Enforcement Officer of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to seize the mobile tower, installed at the site in question and dismantle the same within 15 days and recover the amount of expenses incurred in the above process from the petitioner.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a mobile tower was installed by the petitioner-company on the site in question way back in the year 2014 and after a lapse of more than 8 years, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint for removal of the same under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act of 1987).
It was further submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 approached the District Telecom Committee as per the clause 15(4) of the order dated February 06, 2017 issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing. It was argued that when the respondent No.1 already availed the alternative remedy, there was no reason and occasion available with him to file a complaint under Section 22C of the Act of 1987.
It was submitted that the aforesaid complaint filed by the respondent No.1 was not maintainable before the PLA as the issue involved in the complaint does not fall within the purview of 'public utility service', as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987.
On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no permission was granted to the petitioner by JDA to install the tower in question on the land of the respondent No.1.
It was further submitted that while issuing No Objection Certificate in this regard a specific condition was put that if any, complaint or any adverse situation is found then the JDA would take a decision with regard to removal of mobile tower with the expenditure chargeable to petitioner.
The following issues were before the Court:
- Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding installation of mobile tower?
- Whether installation or removal of mobile tower is covered by the definition of 'public utility service', as defined under Section 22A (b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987?
The Court noted that PLAs established under Section 22B(1) of the Act of 1987 are to exercise the jurisdiction, with respect of 'public utility service' only and the dispute with regard to installation of mobile tower is not covered under the definitions of 'public utility service'.
The Court relied upon the judgment of Patna High Court in M/s. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar & Ors. AIR 2022 Patna 179 wherein it was held that dispute regarding installation of a mobile tower is not covered by the definition of public utility service, as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987.
The Court further placed reliance upon the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Phool Kaur v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, Haryana & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 9547 and M/s. Bharti Infrastructure Ventures Ltd. & Anr. v. Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr. [CWP No.14658/2013].
The Court held that the dispute related to installation of mobile tower is not covered by the definition of 'public utility service' under Section 22A (b) of the Act of 1987. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur.
The Court further directed the District Telecom Committee, Jaipur to look into the matter, as per clause 15(4) of the Government order dated February 06, 2017 and decide the complaint of the complainant, keeping in view the NOC letter dated June 24, 2014 and the letters dated November 18, 2015, May 30, 2022 and June 20, 2022 issued by the JDA and pass appropriate orders, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties, strictly in accordance with law.
“It goes without saying that the needful exercise would be done by the District Telecom Committee expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order,” the Court added.
Counsels for the Petitioner: Advocate Anuroop Singhi and Advocate Arjun Parashar
Counsels for the Respondents: Advocate Shyam Sunder Sharma and Additional Advocate General Rajesh Maharishi
Case Title: Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Dr. Harish Agrawal & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9488/2023
Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 13