ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The short question involved in this writ appeal is, whether in absence of one non-judicial member of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) established under Section 22B(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act of 1987’), the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) consisting of Chairman and other non-judicial member can adjudicate the dispute and pass a valid award under Section 22E(3) of the Act of 1987?

2. The aforesaid question has fallen for consideration in the following factual backdrop: -

3. The Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bilaspur, in Case No.12/2019 (Arshad Ahmad v. Executive Engineer, uxj laHkkx&2] if'pe CSPDCL and another) passed an award on 10-11- 2021 under Section 22A of the Act of 1987 consisted of a Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat and a non-judicial member which came to be challenged by the petitioner herein by way of W.P.(C)No.5022/2021 on the ground of jurisdiction that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) did not have proper and full quorum under Section 22B(2) of the Act of 1987, but that was dismissed by the impugned order by the learned Single Judge finding no merit.

4. It is the case of the petitioner/writ appellant herein that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) was not duly constituted in terms of Section 22B(2) of the Act of 1987 and therefore the award was not passed by majority as provided in Section 22E(3) of the Act and therefore the award so passed has no sanctity in eye of law and thus, the award is void and it is liable to be set aside which the learned Single Judge has not found favour with and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant herein, would submit that the application filed under Section 22A of the Act of 1987 was dismissed by award dated 10-11-2021 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) consisted of the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat and one member i.e. only two members and therefore it was not duly constituted under Section 22B of the Act of 1987. He would further submit that since the award was not passed under Section 22E(3) of the Act of 1987 by majority, therefore, the award was liable to be set aside in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bar Council of India v. Union of India, (2012) 8 SCC 243. According to Mr. Soni, learned counsel, Section 22B(2) of the Act of 1987 is mandatory in nature and award passed in contravention of the aforesaid provision is bad and is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL)/respondents herein, would support the impugned order and submit that the Chairman and one member of the Permanent Lok Adalat duly constituted have heard the case of the petitioner/writ appellant herein and passed the award. He would further submit that in absence of one member, the award cannot be held to be void or illegal and cannot be set aside on this technical ground and therefore the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae, would submit that in fact, the very fact that dissent which is the very soul of a judicial process is permissible under sub-section (3) of Section 22E of the Act of 1987 and furthermore, the aforesaid provision indicates that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) has to act as a composite judicial body in full quorum of one judicial member and two nonjudicial members and in absence of one of them, the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) cannot be said to be duly constituted. He would further submit that every award passed under Section 22E(3) of the Act of 1987 shall be final under Section 22E(4) and it has to be executed by the civil court as if it is a decree by that court and therefore in the case in hand, the award has not been