The Permanent Lok Adalat has the authority to conduct conciliation proceedings and decide disputes without the consent of the parties.

1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 30-11-2010.

2. It is a case where Permanent Lok Adalat was approached by the respondents when they were not extended the benefit of insurance policy. The insurance policy was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent's husband. Regular premium was paid and during the period of insurance, respondent's husband died on account of heart attack. When the claim made by the respondent was not settled, rather vide the order dated 29-9-2009, her claim was rejected, she approached Permanent Lok Adalat.

3. Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner thereupon made an application raising objection regarding jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. It was stated that no agreement or consent exists to give jurisdiction to Permanent Lok Adalat. It was narrated that without consent of the petitioner, Permanent Lok Adalat cannot proceed in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Section 22(c), (d) and (e) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the Act of 1987") the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot proceed in the matter without consent of the parties. Since the petitioner had not given consent to proceed in the matter, the rejection of the application is per se illegal. He has supported his arguments by referring judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 454 : (AIR 2008 SC 2398) and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Popular Carriers v. the Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1433/2006) decided on 10-4-2008.

5. It is further submitted that even petitioner is not ready and give consent for settlement of dispute between the parties rather petitioner is not inclined to participate for conciliation of the dispute. Accordingly, a challenge on the aforesaid ground has been made.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and scanned the matter carefully.

7. Perusal of the order reveals that after service of notice, petitioner made an application raising objection of the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. It was precisely on the ground that a consent has not been given to the Permanent Lok Adalat to proceed in the matter. The application was dismissed after holding that no such consent is required. As per the provisions of the Act of 1987, what is required is to first make an endeavour to amicably settle the matter and if agreement is arrived at between the parties, to pass order accordingly. In case of failure to settle, to decide the dispute. In the instant case, learned counsel for petitioner candidly made a statement that petitioner is not inclined even to participate for conciliation of dispute. This is in absence of his consent. According to him, consent is required even to take up the matter for conciliation.

8. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the provisions referred to above. It would be gainful to quote provisions of Section 22C, D and E of the Act of 1987 for ready reference :

"22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat - (1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute :
Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law :Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees :Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.

(2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisd