Kerala High Court: Lok Adalats Not Conferred With Any Inherent Power To Review U/s 22D Legal Services Authorities Act

The Kerala High Court has held that Lok Adalats are not conferred with any inherent power to review under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by a BSNL Consumer, who had challenged the post-paid mobile bills issued to him by approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 (c) (1) r/w 22 A (b) (ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed, "The Permanent Lok Adalat, established under the Act of 1987, is not a court with plenary powers and cannot operate outside the Act or exercise powers not expressly granted by law. The right to seek review is not a natural or fundamental right, as such power must be explicitly conferred by legislation. There is no inherent power of review unless provided by law, and a clear distinction exists between rectification and review, with review needing statutory authorisation."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sethunath V., while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Mathews K. Philip.

Facts of the Case

The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner had travelled to Dubai after activating international roaming on his postpaid number and obtaining a separate BSNL SIM for roaming. He challenged the bill issued by BSNL before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

The Respondent-BSNL clarified that smartphones and high-end GPRS-capable devices continuously consume data due to background applications, which are likely to lead to high charges and the Consumer has the option to keep these applications enabled/disabled while on international roaming. Submitting that international roaming usage is received after two days, triggering a pre-barring message, with an interim bill and the final invoice amounting to ₹1,27,462/-, the Respondent contended that all charges were correctly billed as per the tariff, and the contention of the Petitioner that he has not used the BSNL connection while on roaming is baseless.

The Permanent Lok Adalat found that the Petitioner could not prove that the usage claimed by the BSNL was not correct. The Petitioner then filed a review under Section 22D of the Act, contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as the forum wrongly held that the petitioner failed to prove the case. It was urged that the deposition of RW1 reveals that BSNL did not produce key documents, including the intimation document from the international roaming operator. The Petitioner stated that BSNL, being the sole custodian of billing and data usage records, had a fundamental duty to produce those documents and explain the bill generation process. Withholding such vital documents amounts to fraud on the court.

The Lok Adalat found that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, and as per Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, it has no power to reassess the evidence already discussed and concluded. The Tribunal found that the review petition was an abuse of process and dismissed it without issuing a notice to the respondent. The Award rejecting the review is under challenge here.

Reasoning By Court

The Court answered in negative, the question as to whether any power to review is conferred under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 198

It noted that it is trite that a review on merits requires specific statutory permission, while procedural review, addressing fairness issues, is inherent in all adjudicatory bodies and review on merits, which involves re-examining the correctness of a decision, can only be exercised if specifically permitted by law.

"In the instant case, as the grounds for seeking the review suggest, a merit review, or rather a rehearing on merits, was sought, which is impermissible for the reasons stated above. The view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision referred to above is clearly against all the relevant principles and cannot be treated as good law," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Prakash Sankar vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2025:KER:31080)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates Sethunath V., Manoranjan (Muvattupuzha) V. R.

Respondent- Advocates Mathews K. Phili, Sudhish R., Government Pleader Dheeraj A.S.

Click here to read/ download Order