Permanent Lok Adalat can grant interim relief: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 28

In a significant judgment on the powers of Permanent Lok Adalat (public utility services), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that it is well within its rights to pass an interim order without the culmination of the reconciliation process.

Contrary to the general perception that the “principles of natural justice” merely meant opportunity of hearing, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj also made it clear that the same implied fairness, equity and equality and inherently “prescribes rule against bias”.

The principle had been evolved under the common law to check the arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries and was necessarily required to reflect fairness in action. It could not be embodied in a process of straight jacket definition.

Intent not restrictive

Legislature in Legal Services Authorities Act laid down guiding principles for the Adalat while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding dispute on merit. Legislature chose expression proceedings. If intent was restrictive, there was no reason why legislature would not have used appropriate phrase defining particular stage. —Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, Punjab & Haryana High Court

Justice Bhardwaj further made it clear that the Adalat would have the power to pass an order perceived by it to be in furtherance of natural justice, objectivity, equity, fair play and other principles of justice. The ruling by Justice came on a bunch of petitions by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN), claiming that the Adalat’s interim order on therestoration of electricity connection could not have passed as it amounted to exercising adjudicatory power. Elaborating, its counsel submitted the adjudicating process could be initiated only after the failure of the reconciliation efforts.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted that the legislature had in the Legal Services Authorities Act laid down the guiding principles, including natural justice, to be followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (public utility services). It had consciously laid down these principles for the Adalat, while conducting the conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit.

Justice Bhardwaj added that it was evident that the proceedings might include all steps commencing from the institution of an action and till its culmination. The legislature chose to use the expression “proceedings” instead of defining the stage when the principles were to act as the guiding factors. “In the event the legislative intent would have been restrictive, there was no reason why the legislature would not have used an appropriate phrase defining the particular stage ie ‘at the stage of conciliation’ or `at the stage of adjudication’.”

The enabling power, not confined to be exercise at a stage, would be rendered non-existent in case the interpretation suggested by the petitioner was accepted and would tend to defeat the object behind the enunciation of the Act aimed at providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice were not denied to any citizen following economic or other disabilities. An interpretation denying and depriving the Adalat power to grant interim relief would be based on an incorrect reading and interpretation of the Act’s provision.