Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed to annul the impugned order dated 29-05-2023, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (‘the PLA’), Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., opined that the disputes related to installation of mobile tower was not covered by the definition of public utility service under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘1987 Act’), therefore, the PLA had no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the PLA was not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 29-05-2023 passed by the PLA.
Background
In an instant case, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., the petitioner had shifted the location of the mobile tower and installed the same somewhere else than the place, for which No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) was granted. Further, the Jaipur Development Authority (‘JDA’) vide its letter dated 30-05-2022, wrote to the petitioner that NOC was granted to it for a different location than where the tower was installed, and directed the petitioner to submit its explanation within seven days, but no response of this letter was provided by the petitioner. Hence, on 20-06-2022, the JDA directed the petitioner to remove the tower, but despite the proceedings, the tower was neither removed by the petitioner, nor by the JDA. Thus, Respondent 1 submitted a complaint against the petitioner before the District Telecom Committee (‘DTC’), as per clause 15(4) of the government order dated 06-02-2017, issued by the Department of Telecommunication. However, the said complaint had not been decided till date.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the DTC, Respondent 1 submitted a complaint under Section 22-C of the 1987 Act, before the PLA, indicating that the petitioner was granted permission to install a mobile tower for 4G services on government land in the Jaipur Development Authority (‘JDA’). However, violating the terms and conditions of the above permission, the petitioner had installed a mobile tower over the Respondent 1’s flat and the JDA was not supposed to allow the petitioner to change the location of the site and install the tower near Respondent 1’s flat. Thus, Respondent 1 sought of issuing direction to remove the tower and pay rent of Rs. 40,000 per month as well as compensation and cost of Rs. 1,00,000 each.
The PLA, via impugned order dated 29-05-2023, issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioner and Enforcement Officer of the JDA, to seize the installed mobile tower and dismantle the same within fifteen days and recover the amount of expenses incurred in the process from the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition to set aside the impugned order dated 29-05-2023, passed by the PLA. The petitioner submitted that the tower was installed after getting the requisite permission and the complainant had submitted similar complaint before the DTC as well. Hence, the PLA had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the issue raised was not falling within the meaning of ‘public utility service’.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration before the Court was whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding installation of mobile tower and whether installation or removal of mobile tower was covered by the definition of ‘public utility service’, as defined under Section 22A(b) of the 1987 Act.
The Court relied on Phool Kaur v. Permanent Lok Adalat, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 9547, and opined that the disputes related to installation of mobile tower was not covered by the definition of public utility service under Section 22A(b) of the 1987 Act, therefore, the PLA had no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the PLA was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Thus, the Court directed the DTC under the chairmanship of the District Collector, Jaipur to look into the matter, as per clause 15(4) of the Government order dated 06-02-2017, and decide the complaint of the complainant, keeping in view the NOC letter and the letters issued by the JDA and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 29-05-2023 passed by the PLA.
[Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Harish Agarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 210, Order dated 25-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Anuroop Singhi and Arjun Parashar, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Shyam Sunder Sharma, Advocate; Rajesh Maharishi, Addl. Advocate General.
