Allowed

The Commissioner v. Smt.Mahadevi W/O Krishnappa Pattar

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2022WP/114450/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined whether the Permanent Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to hear a compensation claim against a Municipal Council for a stray bullock attack. The Court held that municipal functions regarding animal control do not qualify as public utility services under the Legal Services Authority Act.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the impugned order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is quashed. Liberty is reserved to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum within six weeks.

The Commissioner Vs Smt.Mahadevi W/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 114450 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶10

(BY SRI. G B NAIK and SMT P G NAIK, ADVS.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.MAHADEVI W/O KRISHNAPPA PATTAR AGE:458 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:KALLOLI, TQ:GOKAK, DSIT:BELAGAVI.

¶13

SHRI.ANIL S/O KRISHNAPPA PATTAR AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KALLOLI, TQ:GOKAK, DSIT:BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI.MAHESH S/O KRISHNAPPA PATTAR AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KALLOLI, TQ:GOKAK, DSIT:BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI.ANAND S/O KRISHNAPPA PATTAR AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KALLOLI, TQ:GOKAK,

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

¶18

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶19

DSIT:BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-D DATED;03.10.2015, PASSED ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.4 IN OP.NO.31/2014 BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELAGAVI.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The respondents herein approached the

¶26

Permanent Lok Adalat for payment of compensation of Rs.12 lakhs. This claim was made because of an attack by the stray bullock wandering near Delhi Selection Cloth Centre in Gokak town, as a result of which, Krishnappa Annappa Pattar of Kalloli village, the husband and father of respondents suffered serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same.

¶27

This claim was lodged against the State, the Directorate of Municipal Administration and the

¶28

Commissioner of CMC.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶31

The CMC raised objection that the Permanent

¶32

Lok Adalat could not possess jurisdiction since the discharge of function by a Municipal Council cannot be the equated to a public utility service as defined under Section 22A of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short, the Act’).

¶33

The Permanent Lok Adalat framed a preliminary issue and after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that it did have jurisdiction by the impugned order.

¶34

In the impugned order it is stated that since under Section 22-A(b)(iv), a public sector utility service included a system of public conservancy and sanitation and since Section 87 (c) cast a duty on the Municipality to abate all public nuisances, it was indeed the municipality’s function to ensure that all public nuisances was to be stopped and consequentially it was a public utility services defined under Section 22-A of the LSA Act.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶37

The Municipality is therefore before this Court challenging the said finding.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by no stretch of imagination can discharge of municipal functions be considered as a public utility service as contemplated under the Act.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, however, support the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat and contends that the Permanent Lok Adalat did have

¶40

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

¶41

Section 22A of the Act defines a public utility service. The concept of service is that an entity provides a service, which is availed of by a consumer and for rendering of this service, there would be necessarily, a fee charged.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶44

However, in order for a service to become a public utility service as defined under Section 22-A, it can only be a function which are prescribed thereunder.

¶45

A perusal of the kind of service stipulated in Section 22A(b) would indicate that it is only an entity which provides a specified kind of service for which charges are collected can approach the Permanent Lok Adalat to take cognizance of a complaint. It is to be stated that this provision was introduced and the Permanent Lok Adalat was created to prevent the regular courts of law to be clogged with disputes relating to the public utility service.

¶46

This special forum cannot however be empowered to deal with claims for compensation for tortiuous acts or to decide on claims for compensation for the acts unconnected with providing of a public utility service.

¶47

¶48

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in (2012)8 SCC 243 to contend that the permanent lok adalat did possess jurisdiction.

¶50

In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with the validity of the Act and in that context, the Supreme Court has stated that it was permissible for the Parliament to enact a law by which the jurisdiction of certain forums were taken away and by establishing Permanent Lok Adalat. In that context it has held that the Parliamentary Act was to be in addition and not in derogation of another forum created under another law.

¶51

In my view, this judgment cannot be an authority for the proposition that a municipal function would also come within the manner of a public utility service.

¶52

As far as the reasoning of the Tribunal that the attack of stray bull could be relatable to public utility

¶53

¶54

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶55

service as defined under Section 22A(b)(iv) i.e., a system of public conservancy and sanitation, cannot be accepted. Public conservancy and sanitation would no doubt be a municipal function but the contention that control of animals in a municipal area would also fall within the meaning of system of conservancy or sanitation, would be rather far fetched and cannot be accepted. A system of sanitation or a public conservancy cannot be relatable to the control of animals on the streets of a municipality and at best it can be related to the manner of controlling sewage and waste within a municipal area.

¶56

The reliance placed on Section 87C that the municipality was under a obligation to abate all public nuisance would also bring all municipal functions within the purview of public utility service under Section 22A of the LSA Act cannot be accepted. The discharge of an obligatory function under the municipal laws cannot be equated to a service, which is essentially relatable only to

¶57

¶58

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶59

services provided by public utilities for which charges are collected.

¶60

The reliance placed on the award passed by the permanent lok adalat in respect of an attack on a minor child by a stray dog cannot also be of any avail. As stated above, the control of stray or vagrant animals cannot be brought within the purview of the system of public conservancy and sanitation as defined under Section 22A of the LSA Act.

¶61

I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is quashed.

¶62

It is hereby held that the Permanent Lok Adalat did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondents against the Municipal Council which arose out of an attack of a stray bull on a resident of the Municipal Council.

¶63

¶64

WP No. 114450 of 2015

¶65

The complaint is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶66

The time spent before the Permanent Lok Adalat and also before this Court, shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if the petitioner were to initiate appropriate proceeding within a period of six weeks from today.

¶67

Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶68

SD JUDGE

¶69

KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

The Commissioner v. Smt.Mahadevi W/O Krishnappa Pattar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Smt.Mahadevi W/O Krishnappa Pattar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tippu Sultan S/O Late Chandrappa Uppargeri Alias Chandasab Vs K E B Basamma W/O Lat Chandrappa Upparageri Alias Chandasab

Sri Abdulnabi S/O Bashasaba Attara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen Kumar B S/O Late Brahmadevaiah N. Vs Smt. Padmashree D Kivade D/O Dhanyakumar Kivade

Shri.Shivabasappa S/O Veerbhadrappa Karoshi Vs Shri.Rajivan K.B.

Sri. Nabisab S/O Mahibubasab Momin, Vs Sri. Mahammadasab S/O Allabax Momin

Sri Laxmivinayak Trading Company Vs Deputy Commissioner