The Bombay High Court has quashed a 2017 order of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), which had directed a mobile user to pay ₹23,981 to Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. for alleged international roaming charges. The Court held that the PLA’s refusal to permit cross-examination of the respondent’s witness, despite specific application, violated principles of natural justice as mandated under Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain passed the judgment on July 14, 2025, allowing a writ petition filed by Bindu Narang, who had challenged the PLA’s order dated December 27, 2017. The bench observed that the denial of cross-examination without assigning any reasons rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable.
Background of the Case
On December 14, 2014, petitioner Bindu Narang purchased a SIM card from Matrix Cellular at the Mumbai airport before travelling to Dubai. The SIM was offered under a fixed data plan for the period from December 14 to December 21, 2014, for ₹3,500. However, she later received a bill dated December 30, 2014, demanding ₹28,543, failing which the payable amount would increase to ₹29,143 after January 31, 2015.
When the petitioner did not make the payment, Matrix Cellular filed an application (No. 8343 of 2015) before the PLA seeking ₹23,981.
Narang contested the claim, arguing that the “Customer Agreement Form” submitted by Matrix did not bear her signature or photograph, among other discrepancies. She also applied for cross-examination of the respondent’s witness in June 2017. However, this application was rejected on September 26, 2017, without any recorded reasons, and the PLA proceeded to allow Matrix’s claim in December 2017.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court noted that the impugned order of the PLA did not refer to the petitioner’s application for cross-examination or provide reasons for its rejection. The Court held:
“Denial of cross-examination by the PLA on an application made by the petitioner without giving any reasons would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play which as per Section 22-D, the PLA is obliged to follow.”
The bench emphasized that the PLA, even though not bound by the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act, must adhere to fairness and equity as prescribed under the Legal Services Authorities Act. Citing Adaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2016) 15 SCC 785] and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. v. Suresh Kumar & Anr. [2025 (2) RLW 1549 (Raj)], the Court reiterated the legal principle that denial of cross-examination can render an adjudicatory order invalid when facts are disputed.
The Court also noted inconsistencies between documents submitted by both parties. For example, two versions of the Customer Agreement Form showed differences in the undertakings, presence of the petitioner’s photograph, and account number details. The witness, Mr. Kalpesh Tankaria, had filed an affidavit claiming personal knowledge of the transaction, even though he was not stationed at the airport where the SIM card was purchased.
In light of these disputes and discrepancies, the Court observed:
“It was incumbent on the PLA to have granted the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent.”
Final Directions and Relief
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the PLA’s order dated December 27, 2017, and also set aside the earlier order dated September 26, 2017, rejecting the cross-examination application. The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which sought a writ of certiorari.
In a noteworthy gesture, the petitioner, through counsel, voluntarily offered to donate the amount deposited pursuant to an interim order of March 29, 2019, to a charitable trust running a rural school. The Court appreciated this and directed the Registry to transfer the amount (along with interest) to Padmamani Jain Shwetambar Thirth Pedhi, Pabal, via Bank of Maharashtra.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Bindu Narang v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Writ Petition No.: 2977 of 2018
