SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor – learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Radhakrishna Reddy – learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent-Corporation, the Assistant Solicitor General for India for the 2nd Respondent and Smt.M. Bhaskara Laxmi – learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 & 4.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner Nos.3 &4 the siblings (sisters) of late Sri Pallapu Madhava Rao. The petitioners are all residents of Marutinagar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District. Madhava Rao is claimed to have died by drowning in an unfenced drain abutting the road maintained by the 1st Respondent on the intervening night of the 9th and 10th August, 2008, allegedly on account of the 1st respondent’s negligence in taking due care to fence the drain or otherwise protect unwary passersby from drowning therein. The incident is asserted to have occurred at the unfenced open drain abutting the road near the arch at Balajinagar, Sridhar Colony, K.V.R. Pragati School, jilalguda, Ranga Reddy District.

3. In June, 2009 the petitioners applied to the Permanent Lok Adalat [the ‘PLA’] for public utility services under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 [the ‘1987 Act’] for compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs for the loss of life on account of negligence of the 1st respondent in exercising due care in protecting its property and the consequent in injury (death) of Sri Madhava Rao.

4. By the order dated 14-07-2009 the PLA rejected the application and returned the papers to the petitioners on broadly two grounds :

(a) since tortuous liability of the 1st respondent-Corporation is alleged and damages sought therefore and the provisions of the Evidence Act and CPC are inapplicable under the 1987 Act and damages could be assessed only on recording evidence, the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and not under the provisions of the 1987 Act and before the PLA; and

(b) since the incident occurred in the R.R. District the matter has to be pursued before the Legal Services Authority of that District and not before the PLA, Public Utility Services, Hyderabad, as it has no jurisdiction.

5. The writ petition is filed in the circumstances above seeking:

(a) a declaration invalidating Section 22B of the 1987 Act on the ground, this provision is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 and for excessive delegation constituting abdication of legislative power;

(b) to declare the notification No.1/APSLSA-LSW/2006, dated 23-11-2006, published in the A.P.Gazette of even date, as ultra vires provisions of the 1987 Act for being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 as also for excessive delegation of Legislative powers amounting to abdication; and

(c) for a direction to the 3rd respondent [PLA, Public Utility Services, Hyderabad] to register and adjudicate the petitioner’s claim bearing Sr.No.8532/2009, dated 23-06-2009, while setting aside the order dated 14-07-2009.

6. The A.P. State Legal Services Authority by the notification published in the A.P.Gazette on 23-11-2006, exercising power under Sec.22B(i) of the 1987 Act established one PLA each at Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Guntur, Visakhapatnam, Chittoor, Kadapa:

….for exercising the jurisdiction in respect of all disputes relating to public utility services defined under Sec 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, and also in respect of any service to be declared by the State Government or Central Government as public utility service for the purpose of chapter-VI of the Act. The area of operation of each Permanent Lok Adalat shall be the respective district.

7. To challenge the rejection of their application claiming damages/compensation the petitioners contend:

(a) that the PLA erred in stating that it is only a pre-litigation dispute resolution authority;

(b) that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22D of the 1987 Act, the relevant provisions of CPC an