Hon''ble Amitava Lala, J.@mdashThese writ petitions have been filed on the part of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). By means of these
writ petitions, the writ petitioners challenged the order/s of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 13.1.2012 in respect of connection/re-connection of
the telephone line in the premises of the respondent/s. Under the orders impugned, the Permanent Lok Adalat has given one month time to the writ
petitioners to connect/reconnect the telephone line of the respondents, and further directed that in case of failure to comply with the order/s within
such period, damages or compensation will be paid for a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent/s in Writ Petition Nos. 13247 of 2012 and 13250
of 2012 and Rs. 3000/- to the respondent in Writ Petition No. 13248 of 2012. The signatories of the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalat are the
Chairman and two members. Surprisingly, these writ petitions were filed on 15.3.2012 after expiry of two months from the date of the orders of
the Permanent Lok Adalat without complying with any of the directions. It has been contended by the petitioners that there is practical difficulty in
giving connection to the respondents. The petitioners have taken three grounds. Firstly, the Company has faced loss to the tune of Rupees Six
thousand crores. Secondly, the Company has already decided to reduce the expenditure. Thirdly, there was a construction of National Highway
and no land is available for underground cable. It has been specifically said that due to fault committed by the National Highway Authority the
underground cable has been damaged. There is no fault on the part of the petitioners. To lay down underground cable, road-side land is to be dug.
At number of places the drainage land is also to be dug, for which permission is to be sought from the Nagar Palika and also from the National
Highway Authority.
2. We are surprised to see the attitude of the petitioners, being a Governmental authority, made for providing the public utility services. Curtailment
of expenditure does not necessarily mean curtailment of public utility services by a Governmental authority. Question of damages or compensation
arose on account of failure to provide service within one month from the date of passing the order. It is well known to us that in case of essential
services like electricity, telephone, water supply etc. the Courts are normally granting time for connection/re-connection within 24 hours or if not
within 48 hours or if not within 72 hours or maximum within one week from the date of the order. In the present cases, one month period has been
given by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the petitioners which, according to us, is more than sufficient. In case of any practical difficulty, it was
desirable on the part of a Governmental authority to go before the Permanent Lok Adalat for extension of time or for any other purpose. However,
neither it has proceeded before the Permanent Lok Adalat for extension of time or for any other purpose nor complied with the order but after
expiry of two months from the date of the orders invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. Moreover, u/s 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and shall not be called in question in
any original suit, application or execution proceeding, being based on the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play and equity and other
principles of justice. Though the writ jurisdiction of the High Court may not be treated as of such type of Courts, but on its own wisdom it does not
interfere with the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat unless, of course, an extreme case is available before it that too in relation to decision
making process but not the decision, otherwise the scheme of the Permanent Lok Adalat will be frustrated and again the mainstream of the
judiciary will be burdened with new type of litigations. The object of making such Permanent Lok Adalat is not only to make the people aware and
give them justice but also to reduce the workload of mainstream of the judiciary. If we very often interfere with the cause, it will delay or defeat the
object of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. From the present cases, it appears to us that the stand taken on the part of one of the
functionaries of the Union of India is contrary to the stand of the Union of India regarding disposal of such type of disputes by the Permanent Lok
Adalat. Having so, we do not find any cause to interfere with the matters and to admit the writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed at
the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost.
Hon''ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.
I agree.