Prakash Sankar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/xyeo/

Citations: 2025 KER 31080 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1712
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 27890 of 2018, decided on 10.04.2025
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Coram: Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 22D – Power of Review by Permanent Lok Adalat – Scope and Limitations.

Petitioner challenged dismissal of review petition by Permanent Lok Adalat against award upholding BSNL’s post-paid mobile bills for international roaming charges.

Held:- Permanent Lok Adalat lacks inherent power to review merits of its award unless expressly provided by statute – Review limited to procedural irregularities vitiating proceedings, such as failure to serve notice or fraud – Petitioner’s request for re-examination of evidence amounted to impermissible merit review.

Reliance on Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur [2015 (4) CivCC 225] rejected as contrary to settled principles.

Writ petition dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Prakash Sankar, a BSNL post-paid mobile subscriber, challenged bills issued for international roaming charges incurred during his travel to Dubai in November 2015. He activated international roaming on his number (9447703014) and obtained a separate BSNL SIM for roaming. BSNL billed him ₹1,27,462/-, citing data usage under Data Plan 501, which allowed 5 GB free data. The bills reflected high usage from November 30 to December 3, 2015, leading to service suspension after exceeding 500% of his credit limit. The petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat (O.P. No. 40/2016), alleging erroneous billing. The Lok Adalat dismissed his petition on July 21, 2018, finding no proof of billing errors, supported by BSNL’s Call Data Records showing continuous internet usage and calls. The petitioner’s review petition under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, claiming BSNL withheld key documents, was dismissed on August 4, 2018, without notice to BSNL, as an abuse of process. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the dismissal of the review.

Issues

  1. Does the Permanent Lok Adalat have the power to review its award under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987?
  2. Was the dismissal of the petitioner’s review petition by the Lok Adalat justified?

Arguments

  • Petitioner: Argued that the Lok Adalat erred in dismissing his review petition, as BSNL failed to produce critical documents (e.g., intimation from the international roaming operator) and had a duty to explain the billing process. Withholding documents constituted fraud on the court. Relied on Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur [2015 (4) CivCC 225] to argue that a liberal review procedure applies under the Act.
  • Respondents (BSNL & Ors.): Contended that the Lok Adalat correctly dismissed the review, as Section 22D does not confer merit review powers. The petitioner’s claims sought re-examination of evidence, which is impermissible. BSNL’s billing was justified by detailed Call Data Records, and the petitioner’s high data usage was due to background applications on his smartphone, a known issue in international roaming.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding:

  1. No Inherent Review Power: Under Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks inherent power to review the merits of its award unless expressly authorized by statute. Review is limited to procedural irregularities (e.g., failure to serve notice, fraud) that vitiate the proceedings, not errors in judgment or re-litigation of merits (Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 777]; Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [AIR 1981 SC 606]).
  2. Petitioner’s Claim Impermissible: The petitioner’s review petition sought a merit-based re-examination of evidence, alleging BSNL’s failure to produce documents. This was not a procedural irregularity but a challenge to the correctness of the award, which is not permitted under Section 22D.
  3. Rejection of Precedent: The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur was held to be against settled principles and not good law.
  4. Dismissal Upheld: The Lok Adalat’s dismissal of the review petition without notice to BSNL was justified, as the petition was an abuse of process, seeking an impermissible rehearing on merits.

Conclusion

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the Permanent Lok Adalat’s award and review dismissal were legally sound. The petitioner failed to establish any procedural illegality warranting interference.

Key Precedents

  • Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 777]
  • Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [AIR 1981 SC 606]

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary issue in Prakash Sankar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2025 : KER: 31080)?
    a) Validity of BSNL’s international roaming tariffs
    b) Power of Permanent Lok Adalat to review its award under Section 22D
    c) Petitioner’s right to a free mobile connection
    d) Jurisdiction of the High Court in billing disputes
    Answer: b) Power of Permanent Lok Adalat to review its award under Section 22D
  2. Under which section of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, did the petitioner file a review petition?
    a) Section 22C
    b) Section 22D
    c) Section 22A
    d) Section 22E
    Answer: b) Section 22D
  3. What was the High Court’s ruling regarding the Permanent Lok Adalat’s power to review?
    a) It has inherent power to review merits of any award
    b) It can review only procedural irregularities, not merits, unless statutorily authorized
    c) It can review merits without statutory authorization
    d) It has no power to review under any circumstances
    Answer: b) It can review only procedural irregularities, not merits, unless statutorily authorized
  4. Which precedent did the High Court rely on to define the scope of review powers?
    a) Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur [2015 (4) CivCC 225]
    b) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 777]
    c) Prakash Sankar v. BSNL [2018]
    d) None of the above
    Answer: b) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 777]
  5. Why was the petitioner’s review petition dismissed by the Permanent Lok Adalat?
    a) It was filed beyond the limitation period
    b) It sought a merit-based rehearing, which is impermissible under Section 22D
    c) BSNL provided conclusive evidence of fraud
    d) The petitioner failed to pay court fees
    Answer: b) It sought a merit-based rehearing, which is impermissible under Section 22D

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the dispute in Prakash Sankar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited about?
    The dispute arose when the petitioner, Prakash Sankar, challenged BSNL’s post-paid mobile bills for international roaming charges (₹1,27,462/-) incurred during his trip to Dubai in November 2015. He claimed the bills were erroneous, while BSNL justified them with Call Data Records showing high data usage due to background applications on his smartphone.
  2. What action did the petitioner take before approaching the High Court?
    The petitioner first approached the Permanent Lok Adalat (O.P. No. 40/2016) under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to challenge the bills. After the Lok Adalat dismissed his petition on July 21, 2018, he filed a review petition under Section 22D, which was also dismissed on August 4, 2018. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala.
  3. What is the significance of Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, in this case?
    Section 22D governs the procedure of the Permanent Lok Adalat, stating it is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act and must follow principles of justice. The High Court clarified that this section does not confer power to review the merits of an award unless explicitly provided, limiting review to procedural irregularities like failure to serve notice or fraud.
  4. Why did the High Court dismiss the petitioner’s writ petition?
    The High Court dismissed the writ petition because the petitioner’s review petition sought a merit-based rehearing of the Lok Adalat’s award, which is not permissible under Section 22D. The court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks inherent power to review merits, and the petitioner failed to show any procedural irregularity vitiating the original proceedings.
  5. Which precedent did the petitioner rely on, and why was it rejected by the High Court?
    The petitioner relied on Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur [2015 (4) CivCC 225] by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which suggested a liberal review procedure under the Act. The Kerala High Court rejected this precedent as contrary to settled principles, citing Supreme Court rulings (Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union and Grindlays Bank Ltd.) that limit review to procedural errors unless statutorily authorized.
  6. What are the key takeaways from this judgment regarding the Permanent Lok Adalat’s review powers?
    • The Permanent Lok Adalat has no inherent power to review the merits of its awards unless expressly provided by law.
    • Review is restricted to procedural irregularities (e.g., lack of notice, fraud) that invalidate the proceedings.
    • A merit-based review, re-examining the correctness of the decision, requires specific statutory authorization.
    • The principles of justice under Section 22D do not extend to re-litigating decided issues.
  7. How did BSNL justify the high billing charges in this case?
    BSNL justified the charges by providing detailed Call Data Records showing continuous internet usage and calls by the petitioner from November 30 to December 3, 2015. They explained that the petitioner’s smartphone likely consumed data via background applications, a common issue in international roaming, and that all charges were correctly billed per the tariff under Data Plan 501.
  8. Can a consumer challenge mobile billing disputes in the Permanent Lok Adalat?
    Yes, consumers can challenge mobile billing disputes in the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as it has jurisdiction over public utility services like telecommunications. However, they must provide evidence to prove billing errors, as seen in this case where the petitioner’s claim was dismissed due to lack of proof.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Law Note: Doctrine of Mutuality in Indian Medical Association, Kerala State Branch v. Union of India & Ors.
    The doctrine of mutuality is a common law principle that posits an entity cannot derive taxable income or provide taxable services to itself, as there is no distinct provider-recipient relationship.
  • Sri Malakappa v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
    Motor Accident Compensation – Loss of Dependency – Husband, though able-bodied, could not be assumed to be entirely non-dependent absent evidence of his employment.
  • ASF Buildtech v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 11, 16, 21, 23, 37 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Notice under Section 21 – Competence-Competence Principle.
  • Analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    The Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provide a framework for compounding certain offences committed under the Act.
  • Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras
    Contempt of Court – Forgery of Court Orders – Criminal Contempt – Limitation under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Standard of Proof – Sentence Modification
  • Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
    The principle of res judicata, derived from the Latin maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a matter adjudged is taken as true), is a fundamental doctrine in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.
  • Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India
    Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.
  • Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District
    Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.
  • Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    These rules may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025.
  • Kerala State Elderly Commission Act, 2025
    An Act to constitute an Elderly Commission for giving guidelines in matters related to the welfare and protection of the elderly and to enable their rehabilitation and to undertake and carry out schemes and activities necessary for making use of their skills and experience for utilizing it for the general public and to ensure the protection of rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.