Permanent Lok Adalat has no power to review its order, says Kerala HC
The court made the observation recently while dismissing a petition by a BSNL customer against the refusal of the Ernakulam Permanent Lok Adalat to review its order regarding overcharge of calls. The petitioner sought to review the adalat's earlier order on the ground that the BSNL, being the sole custodian of billing and data usage records, had failed to produce those documents and explain the bill generation process.
Clear distinction
The court observed that clear distinction existed between rectification and review, with review needing statutory authorisation. The adalat's power of recall did not equate to rehearing for errors in judgment or re-litigation of merits, but allowed for correction of procedural errors such as failure to serve necessary notice on parties and so on.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Adjudicatory Board for major ports notified in the gazette
Advt By , ETInfra The Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways has notified the constitution of the Adjudicatory Board for major ports in the gazette, as prescribed in the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, that governs 11 of the 12 state-owned ports. Justice Ashish Jitendra Desai , former Chief Justice, Kerala High Court, has been named the first Presiding Officer of the Adjudicatory Viswanath, former Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, and former Member, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and Dr Sanjeev Ranjan, former Secretary, Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, and Technical Member, National Company Law Tribunal have been named members of the Adjudicatory Presiding Officer and the members of the Adjudicatory Board will hold office for a period of five years or till attaining the age of 70 years, whichever is the constitution of the Adjudicatory Board, based in Mumbai, brings the curtains down on the erstwhile Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP), the rate regulator for the 11 major ports, which was shut following the enactment of the new law to govern major Adjudicatory Board's functions include adjudicating disputes between major ports and Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) operators, appraising and reviewing stressed PPP projects as well as suggesting measures for their revival and handling complaints from port users on the services provided by major ports or private notification of the Adjudicatory Board in the gazette has been hailed by the private ports and terminal operators.'We have been waiting for the constitution of the Adjudicatory Board all these years,' said R Ravi Kumar, Secretary General, Indian Private Ports & Terminals Association (IPPTA), a lobby group for private terminal operators.'Although, the Conciliation and Settlement Committee has done a commendable job in resolving some of the disputes, there have been delays in finalising the issues as port authorities tend to wait for the approval of the government before the conciliation awards are implemented. Glad that the Board has been constituted. It is hoped that proceedings of the Adjudicatory Board in settling the disputes between the Port Authorities and the PPP operators will be faster and the decisions implemented quickly. It is noteworthy that appeals against the decisions of the Adjudicatory Board will lie only in the Supreme Court. This would render speedy closure to issues,' Ravi Kumar added.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Women and Child Development department has initialised dowry prohibition portal, HC told
The State government informed the Kerala High Court that the Women and Child Development (WCD) department has initialised a dowry prohibition portal where aggrieved persons can directly file their complaints to the court. In addition, a standard operating procedure to handle cases relating to the Dowry Prohibition Act is being prepared, it said, in an affidavit filed with regard to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ernakulam native Tellmy Jolly, challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that it also penalised the giving of dowry. The penalising of the dowry giver – often the victim or a family member – acts as a deterrent to reporting dowry-related harassment for fear of self incrimination. The affidavit further says that the government has appointed district-level dowry prohibition officers. The Director of Women and Child Development department will serve as the chief dowry prohibition officer to administer and coordinate dowry prohibition activities. The government is also taking earnest efforts to see that the evil of seeking and giving dowry is prohibited. The case has been adjourned to September 16, after the counsel for the Union government sought more time to file a counter affidavit.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
HC quashes proceedings on ‘negative comments' in Whatsapp group about CMDRF account
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings that were initiated against two persons for allegedly posting 'negative comments' in a Whatsapp group about the collection of money towards the Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) account for victims of the July 2024 Wayanad landslides. A case was registered against the petitioners under BNS on the charge of wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause rioting, for punishment for obstruction etc under the Disaster Management Act and for causing nuisance and violation of public order under the Kerala Police Act. A Bench of Justice V.G. Arun recently held that the comments, when read as a whole, makes it apparent that they were posted during the course of a discussion regarding the utilisation of the contributions made to the CMDRF. On misutilisation of funds There are comments about misutilisation of the money donated and also against the political party in power. Even if so, to assume that such comments are capable of causing riot among the public and nuisance to others is to say the least, preposterous. That the comments are not palatable to a group of people or even to the government is no reason to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioners since the comments, though critical of the government, are well within the bounds of law. Stating that the offences alleged has not been made out in the present case, the court said that fair criticism of the government's actions cannot be termed as something done with an intention to cause rioting. Neither would it attract the provisions of Kerala Police Act. An offence under the Disaster Management Act too would not be attracted since there was no obstruction to any public servant or a refusal to comply with the directions of the government or any of its servants. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to every citizen. Fair criticism and right to express dissent is intrinsic to the concept of democratic governance. Clamping persons expressing dissent or raising criticisms with criminal cases is an affront to the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. The comments posted by the petitioners being fair criticism, continuation of their prosecution will be an abuse of process of law and violative of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution, the court added.
