Mobile Tower Installation Disputes Fall Outside ‘Public Utility Service’; Permanent Lok Adalat Lacks Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

In 2014 the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) permitted Reliance Jio to erect a 4G mast at a named site; the NOC let the JDA order removal on a complaint (para 14). The first respondent complained that the tower was put up elsewhere, near his plot (para 8). The JDA ordered removal on 20.06.2022, but the tower stayed (para 16), and his complaint to the District Telecom Committee remained undecided (para 17). On his Section 22C application, the Permanent Lok Adalat on 29.05.2023 directed the JDA to seize and dismantle the tower within 15 days at Jio's cost (paras 2, 18). Jio challenged its jurisdiction (paras 4, 9).

Section 22B(1) allows Permanent Lok Adalats to be established for one or more public utility services, so they exercise jurisdiction only in respect of a "public utility service" (paras 12-13). Section 22A(b) lists transport, postal, telegraph or telephone service, supply of power, light or water, public conservancy or sanitation, hospital or dispensary service and insurance, and notified services (para 11). A dispute over the installation of a mobile tower is not covered by that definition (para 13). The Court relied on the Patna High Court's ruling in Ascend Telecom that a Permanent Lok Adalat could not adjudicate a mobile-tower dispute, and on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decisions in Phool Kaur and Bharti Infrastructure Ventures (paras 19-21). It concluded that the Lok Adalat cannot entertain such complaints, so its order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside; Debaraj Behera, cited by the complainant, did not apply (paras 22-23). On the remedy, following Raj Kumar, Vasu Ram and its own ruling in Rohitash Khatana, the Court held that under clause 15(4) of the Government order of 06.02.2017 the District Telecom Committee is the forum for such grievances (paras 24-26).