Sri P. Ramanaiah and Others Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municpal Corporation,a - Court Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.

16188 OF 200.20-01-2012 Sri P.

Ramanaiah and others Greater Hyderabad Municpal Corporation,At Tankbund, Hyderabad, rep., by its Commissioner and others.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor Counsel for the Respondents No.1:Sri Radhakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.2: Asst.

Solicitor General for India.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.

3 & 4 : Smt.

M.

Bhaskara Laxmi Cases referred:

1.

(1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736.

2.

AIR 197.Bomba”

3.

(1994) 4 SCC 22.4.

(1971) 1 SCC 28.5.

(1991) 4 SCC 27.ORDER : [Per GR,J] Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor - learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Radhakrishna Reddy - learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent- Corporation, the Assistant Solicitor General for India for the 2nd Respondent and Smt.M.

Bhaskara Laxmi - learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 & 4.

Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner Nos.3 &4 the siblings (sisters) of late Sri Pallapu Madhava Rao.

The petitioners are all residents of Marutinagar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District.

Madhava Rao is claimed to have died by drowning in an unfenced drain abutting the road maintained by the 1st Respondent on the intervening night of the 9th and 10th August, 2008, allegedly on account of the 1st respondent's negligence in taking due care to fence the drain or otherwise protect unwary passersby from drowning therein.

The incident is asserted to have occurred at the unfenced open drain abutting the road near the arch at Balajinagar, Sridhar Colony, K.V.R.

Pragati School, jilalguda, Ranga Reddy District.

In June, 2009 the petitioners applied to the Permanent Lok Adalat [the 'PLA'] for public utility services under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 [the '1987 Act'] for compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs for the loss of life on account of negligence of the 1st respondent in exercising due care in protecting its property and the consequent in injury (death) of Sri Madhava Rao.

By the order dated 14-07-2009 the PLA rejected the application and returned the papers to the petitioners on broadly two grounds : (a) since tortuous liability of the 1st respondent-Corporation is alleged and damages sought therefore and the provisions of the Evidence Act and CPC are inapplicable under the 1987 Act and damages could be assessed only on recording evidence, the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and not under the provisions of the 1987 Act and before the PLA; and (b) since the incident occurred in the R.R.

District the matter has to be pursued before the Legal Services Authority of that District and not before the PLA, Public Utility Services, Hyderabad, as it has no jurisdiction.

The writ petition is filed in the circumstances above seeking: (a) a declaration invalidating Section 22B of the 1987 Act on the ground, this provision is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 and for excessive delegation constituting abdication of legislative power; (b) to declare the notification No.1/APSLSA-LSW/2006, dated 23-11-2006, published in the A.P.Gazette of even date, as ultra vires provisions of the 1987 Act for being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 as also for excessive delegation of Legislative powers amounting to abdication; and (c) for a direction to the 3rd respondent [PLA, Public Utility Services, Hyderabad] to register and adjudicate the petitioner's claim bearing Sr.No.8532/2009, dated 23-06-2009, while setting aside the order dated 14-07- 2009.

The A.P.

State Legal Services Authority by the notification published in the A.P.Gazette on 23-11-2006, exercising power under Sec.22B(i) of the 1987 Act established one PLA each at Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Guntur, Visakhapatnam, Chittoor, Kadapa: ....for exercising the jurisdiction in respect of all disputes relating to public utility services defined under Sec 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, and also in respect of any service to be declared by the State Government or Central Government as public utility service for the purpose of chapter-VI of the Act.

The area of operation of each Permanent Lok Adalat shall be the respective district.

To challenge the rejection of their application claiming damages/compensation the petitioners contend: (a) that the PLA erred in stating that it is only a pre-litigation dispute resolution authority; (b) that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22D of the 1987 Act, the relevant provisions of CPC and the principles underlying such provisions would apply and the cause of the petitioners ought to be adjudicated by the PLA; (c) that since the Administrative headquarters of the 1st respondent-Corporation is in Hyderabad, within the territorial limits of the PLA, Hyderabad, though the incident occurred in the R.R.

district, the PLA, Hyderabad has jurisdiction over the petitioners' claim particularly since the claim relates to public conservancy, an enumerated subject within public utility service as defined under Section 22A (b)(iv of the 1987 Act; (d) that since the 1987 Act is a beneficent piece of legislation, a broad and purposive construction must be put upon its provisions, to ensure a speedy disposal of cases.

On such purposive and beneficent construction the cause presented by the petitioners would squarely fall within the jurisdiction of the PLA, notwithstanding the occurrence of the incident in R.R.

district; (e) that if Section 22B is to be construed as conferring power on a "subordinate authority" [the A.P.

State Legal Services Authority] to create, confine or prescribe the parameters of jurisdiction of a PLA, that would amount to impermissible and excessive delegation and invalidate Section 22B itself; (f) the delegation of power [to notify the PLA and demarcate its jurisdiction] without specifying criteria or guidelines in the 1987 Act itself constitutes excessive and impermissible delegation of essential legislative powers; (g) alternatively, the failure to establish by notification a PLA for the R.R District is arbitrary conduct and denies the petitioners equal opportunity for speedy adjudication of their grievances, violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution.

The 4th respondent - The A.P.

State Legal Services Authority ( for short ' the APSLSA') has filed a counter affidavit through its Member Secretary.

It is averred in this counter that in view of the notification dated 23-11-2006 of the answering respondent-authority, since the Hyderabad PLA is specified to have territorial jurisdiction confined to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the accident occurred outside these territorial limits ie., within the territory of Ranga Reddy District, the PLA, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners' claim.

It is also reiterated that since the claim was based on tortuous liability and damages are to be assessed by way of collecting oral and documentary evidence amounting to adjudication of lis between the parties, the same is more appropriately within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not before the PLA, which is contemplated to decide disputes by way of conciliation without a specific provision to conduct a trial and record evidence.

The answering respondent further states that at a meeting held on 25-04- 2006 between the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High court of Andhra Pradesh it was resolved to constitute twenty three (23) Permanent Lok Adalats, one for each district in a phased manner over a three year period; and initially six (6) Permanent Lok Adalats at Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Guntur, Visakhapatnam, Chittoor and Kadapa, two in each region ie., Telengana, Andhra and Rayalaseema in the first phase as proposed by the State Government.

Thereafter the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.161, Finance, SMPC Department, dated 21-06-2006 accorded sanction for the post of Chairman and supporting staff for six Permanent Lok Adalats.

Consequently, the APSLSA issued the notification dated 23-06-2006 establishing PLAs for the aforementioned districts for exercising jurisdiction in respect of the respective districts, relating to public utility services as defined under Section 22-A (b) of the 1987 Act.

Eventually, the PLAs commenced functioning.

Subsequently, the APSLSA vide letter dated 26-04-2007 proposed establishment of nine (9) PLAs for public utility services at Adilabad, Nizamabad, Warangal, Ranga Reddy, Anantapur, East Godavari, Krishna, Prakasam and Srikakulam Districts in all the three regions.

The APSLSA also submitted a proposal vide its letter dated 20- 03-2010 requesting sanction of supporting staff and budge to establish PLAs for public utility services at Khammam, Karnool, Kadapa, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Nellore, Vizianagaram and West Godavari Districts during the financial year 2009-10.

The above two proposals are however pending with the State Government.

The State Government is being reminded periodically vide letters dated 15-10- 2007; 30-01-2008; 19-06-2008 and 12-03-2009, to expedite the establishment of PLAs in the other districts as well.

However no budget and supporting staff for these additional PLAs in the other districts proposed has yet been sanctioned by the State Government.

In conclusion, the 4th respondent states that the claim of the petitioners for compensation for the death does not come within the jurisdiction of PLA for public utility services, Hyderabad as per Section 22-A of the 1987 Act.

As is apparent on the foregoing narrative, the petitioners, close relatives of the deceased Madhava Rao filed an application before the PLA, Hyderabad seeking compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs alleging negligence by the 1st respondent- Corporation in failing to exercise due care in protecting its property, a drain abutting a road maintained by the 1st respondent-Corporation.

It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners claim on the 1st respondent-Corporation raises out of an alleged tort.

The principal issue that arises for consideration therefore, is : Whether in the context of provisions of the 1987 Act and in the light of the Gazette Notification dated 23-11-2006 issued by the 4th respondent Authority [establishing a Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad and specifying the area of its operation to be the District of Hyderabad], the application by the petitioners for relief is maintainable before the PLA, Hyderabad? The challenge by the petitioners, to the validity of Section 22B of the 1987 Act and to the notification dated 23-11-2006 issued by the 4th respondent Authority, is therefore contingent on the conclusion by this Court that the application by the petitioners before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hyderabad is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.

For resolution of the above issue and to identify contours of the territorial jurisdiction of the PLA, Hyderabad it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of the 1987 Act and of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Chapter-VI-A was incorporated into 1987 Act by an Amendment Act of 37 of 2002, with effect from 11-06-2002.

Section 22A sets out definitions of the expressions employed in the Chapter and for the purposes of Section 22 and 23, subject however to a contrary context.

Clause (a) defines the Permanent Lok Adalat as one established under Section 22-B(1).

Clause (b) defines Public Utility Service as meaning inter alia: (...

iv any system of public conservancy or sanitation.) Section 22-B enact that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such place for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification.

Section 22-C inter alia spells out the contours of jurisdiction of the PLA and reads :

22. .

Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat : (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of disputed: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.

(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it - (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application; (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings; (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto.

(4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.

(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat, during conduction of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.

(6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it.

(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of the opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which amy be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.

(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.

Section 22D enumerates the procedures of PLA and enjoins that while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the 1987 Act, it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice and shall not be bound under the CPC, 1908 and the Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 22E enjoins that every award made by the PLA shall be on merit or in terms of settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto or the persons claiming under them; that every such award shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court; that the award shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and that the PLA may transmit any award passed by it to a Civil court having local jurisdiction, which shall execute the order as if it were a decree by that court.

Notification dated 23-11-2006 issued by the 4th respondent-Authority establishing a PLA, Hyderabad (for exercising jurisdiction in respect of all disputes relating to public utility services and in respect of any service to be declared by the State government or Central Government as public utility services for purposes of Section VI of the Act; in the area of operation specified to be Hyderabad District) does not ipso facto afford guidance for identifying the territorial jurisdiction of the PLA, Hyderabad.

Though Section 22D enjoins that the PLA shall not be bound by the CPC, this statutory prescription per se exclude or prohibit application of CPC.

The jurisdiction consecrated on a PLA established under Section 22B includes (qua the provision of Section 22C), the jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits, in the event the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub-section 7 thereof.

As succinctly pointed out by the Supreme Court in A.A.

Haja Muniddin Vers.

Indian Railways (1) examining the scope of provisions of Section 18(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (which are substantially similar to the scope of the provisions of Section 22D of the 1987 Act), the Supreme Court explained that the expression "shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the CPC" does not mean that the Tribunal is precluded from invoking the provisions of the CPC, even if the same are not inconsistent with the governing Act and the Rules; and that the construction which advances the cause of justice should be preferred to one which defeats it.

Accordingly the Court held that the provisions of Order XXXIII CPC would apply and an indigent person can prosecute his case before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation for the wrong done to him, in terms of the procedure laid down in Order XXXIII.

From the guidance derived from Haja Muniddin it is apparent that the provisions of Section 15 to 20 CPC, delineating the jurisdiction of Courts where suits ought to be instituted must legitimately operate to guide the PLA to identify whether an application submitted to it under Section 22B could be entertained, subject however to other specific provisions of the 1987 Act, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction.

The PLA Hyderabad by the order dated 14-07-2009 (impugned herein) correctly stated that what is alleged by the petitioners is tortuous conduct of the 1st respondent-Corporation and the remedy sought is damages therefor.

Section 19 of the CPC enjoins : where suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

In State of Maharashtra vs.

Sarvodaya Industries(2) explaining the scope of Section 19 CPC, the Bombay High Court observed: Provisions of Section 19 are specific in subject and clear in its operation.

Firstly it governs a suit seeking restitutive reliefs of compensation on the basis of wrong done to the person or to movable property.

Secondly it offers and furnishes option or choice if the conditions indicated by the qualifying clause are satisfied in the wrong complained of was done within the local limit of one court while the defendant in fact resides or carries on business within the local limits of jurisdiction of another court.

Unless both these conditions together are available, no question of option or choice for forum can conceivable arise.

The conjunction "and" in the qualifying clause is very much indicative of this result, leaving aside the cases where these conditions together are not available, the matters of such suit are still governed by other provisions of the Code.

The 1st respondent-Corporation is a statutory Corporation established under the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (earlier the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955).

As pointed out in Halsbury's Laws of England "When incorporated, the company is a legal entity or persona district form its members, and its property is not the property of the members.

The nationality and domicile of a company is determined by its place of registration.

A company incorporated in the United Kingdom will normally have both British nationality and English or Scottish domicile, depending upon its place of registration, and it will be unable to change that domicile...

In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs.

Karthick Das(3) the Supreme court held that as far as India is concerned, the residence of the Company is where the Registered Office is located; and normally cases should be filed only where the registered office of the company is situate.

Section 20 CPC is in the nature of a residuary provision and enacts a rule as to the appropriate forum.

In cases not falling within the limitation of Section 15 to 19, every suit referred to in this Section may be instituted either in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or the cause of action wholly or in part arises.

In the context of the fact that in determining applications presented under the provisions of the 1987 Act, provisions of CPC are not mandated in all their technical rigor, suffice it to note that as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh versus Gamman (Ind.) Ltd.(4) and in Patel Roadways Limited Versus Prasad Trading Co.,(5); the expression " Corporation" in the explanation to Section 20 CPC includes a statutory corporation and a company registered under the Companies Act.

Since the petitioners seek restitutive relief from the 1st respondent- Corporation for its alleged negligence in the duty of care owed to the general public in maintaining and fencing the drain, resulting the death of Sri Madhava Rao, the application of the petitioners before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hyderabad falls appropriately within the principles for identification of the jurisdiction of the appropriate Court, delineated in Section 19 CPC.

As the Administrative office of the 1st respondent-Corporation is within the territorial limits of Hyderabad District, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hyderabad thus has the jurisdiction to entertain and consider the application of the petitioners, including on merits.

In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary to consider whether the provision of Section 22B of the 1987 Act are invalid for being discriminatory, arbitrary or on the ground that the provision enables delegation of essential legislative power; nor to consider and determine whether the notification No.1/APSLSA-LSW/2006, dated 23-11-2006 of the 4th respondent- Authority is invalid for being arbitrary or discriminatory.

Since the issues presented for adjudication in this Writ Petition arise in the context of the order dated 14-07-2009 passed by the PLA, Public Utility Services, Hyderabad whereby the petitioners application is rejected on the point of territorial jurisdiction, it is not necessary to consider whether the issues presented for consideration to the PLA, Hyderabad, in the petitioners application fall within the expression "Public Utility Service", defined in Section 22A of 1987 Act.

That is an aspect the PLA, Hyderabad must determine if contested.

The order dated 14-07-2009 is also substantially ambiguous and to an extent incoherent.

It is not clear whether the petitioners' application was also rejected on the ground that adjudication of a tortuous liability and grant of restitutory relief in the nature of damages falls outside the ambit of PLA under Section 22B of the 1987 Act and must only be determined by a Civil Court.

However, to avoid misapprehension on this aspect of the matter, it is clarified that having regard to specific adjudicatory jurisdiction conferred on a PLA, under sub-section (8) of Section 22C, in the event conciliation proceedings fail and an agreement cannot be reached under sub-section 7, the PLA does have the jurisdiction and the authority to not merely conduct conciliation proceedings but on failure thereof, to proceed to adjudication.

On the analysis above, the Writ Petition is allowed.

It is declared that as the administrative headquarters of the 1st respondent-Corporation is situate within the territorial limits of Hyderabad District, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public utility services, Hyderabad has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners' application, on application of the principles as to territorial jurisdiction spelt out in Section 19 CPC.

The order of the 3rd respondent, dated 14-07-2009 is set aside.

The 3rd respondent shall entertain the application presented by the petitioners and proceed to process it under Section 22B of the 1987 Act.

In the circumstances however there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt:

20. 01-2012 Ndr/pvks -------------------------------- Justice Goda Raghuram -------------------------------- Samudrala Govindarajulu