Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that a review on merits of an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is impermissible in the absence of statutory authority expressly conferring such power. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a review petition by the Lok Adalat concerning mobile roaming charges levied by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). It held that the grounds raised were in the nature of a merit review, which is not maintainable under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The petitioner, a 55-year-old BSNL consumer from Ernakulam, challenged the mobile post-paid bills issued by BSNL in connection with international roaming usage. He approached the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C(1) read with 22A(b)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, by filing O.P. No. 40 of 2016. He contended that he had travelled to Dubai on 30 November 2015 after activating international roaming on his BSNL postpaid mobile number and obtaining a separate SIM card for the purpose.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR After Live-In Relationship Ends Without Marriage | If Two Adults Live Together As A Couple, A Presumption Of Voluntary Consent Arises

The petitioner disputed the charges levied for data usage and voice calls while roaming, claiming that he did not use the BSNL connection while abroad. He asserted that BSNL failed to provide advance intimation of accruing charges or adequately explain the billing process, thus rendering the charges arbitrary and unjustified.

BSNL, in its reply, stated that the petitioner was under Data Plan 501, which permitted 5 GB of free international roaming data effective from 23 November 2015. It submitted that the petitioner’s usage exceeded 500% of his credit limit, resulting in an automated pre-barring message issued on 3 December 2015. As per BSNL's detailed billing records, the petitioner’s usage was ₹20,209.84 on 30 November, ₹55,613.05 on 1 December, ₹24,494.88 on 2 December, and ₹9,664.48 on 3 December 2015. BSNL contended that smartphones with background applications can continuously consume data, leading to high charges, and that customers have the option to manage such settings while on international roaming. It further stated that international roaming usage is typically received with a two-day delay and that an interim bill was issued on 31 January 2016, followed by a final invoice of ₹1,27,462.

The Permanent Lok Adalat examined oral and documentary evidence and heard an expert witness. The Sub Divisional Engineer of BSNL provided detailed call data records, demonstrating continuous internet usage and calls made by the petitioner during the relevant period. Based on this evidence, the Lok Adalat concluded that the petitioner failed to prove any discrepancy or error in the bills and dismissed the original petition by award dated 21 July 2018 under Section 22C(8) of the Act.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 22D of the Act, alleging an error apparent on the face of the record. He argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding that he failed to prove his case and alleged that BSNL had not produced essential documents such as records from the international roaming operator. He claimed that BSNL, being the custodian of usage records, had a duty to produce all relevant documentation and that the failure to do so amounted to suppression of material facts, thereby vitiating the award.

The Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the review petition on 4 August 2018 without issuing notice to BSNL. It held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable and that the Tribunal had no power to reassess evidence or undertake a merit review under Section 22D. This rejection of the review petition was challenged by the petitioner through the writ petition before the High Court.

The Court framed the primary issue as: “Whether any power to review is conferred under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.”

It extracted the statutory language of Section 22D: “The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1892.”

Addressing the nature of review sought, the Court recorded: “The petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court... which held that the review is maintainable as a more liberal procedure than what is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure is enacted under the Legal Services Authorities Act.”

However, the Court distinguished that ruling and held: “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.”

It stated: “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 Court discussed the procedural versus merit review distinction: “It is trite that a review on merits requires specific statutory permission, while procedural review, addressing fairness issues, is inherent in all adjudicatory bodies.”

Citing the judgment in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Anr., it recorded: “A review on merits, which involves re-examining the correctness of a decision, can only be exercised if specifically permitted by law.”

It elaborated: “The recall of the Award of the Tribunal was sought not on the ground that in passing the Award the Tribunal had committed any procedural illegality or mistake of the nature which vitiated the proceeding itself... but on the ground that some matters which ought to have been considered... were not duly considered. Apparently the recall or review sought was not a procedural review, but a review on merits. Such a review was not permissible in the absence of a provision in the Act conferring the power of review.”

Concluding the analysis, the Court stated: “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.”

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Acquittal In NDPS Case | Prosecution Failed To Prove Possession Of 27 Kg Ganja And Mandatory Safeguards Under NDPS Act Were Not Followed

It rejected reliance on the contrary view from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating: “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 held that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it in its entirety. The Court stated: “There is no merit whatsoever in the writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sethunath V., Advocate; Manoranjan (Muvattupuzha) V.R., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Mathews K. Philip, Standing Counsel, BSNL; Sri Sudhish R., Standing Counsel, BSNL; Government Pleader Sri Dheeraj A.S.

Case Title: Prakash Sankar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:31080
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 27890 of 2018
Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.

[Read/Download order]