1. The petitioner assails the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat whereby the petitioner is being asked to forcefully participate in the conciliation proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and it could not have directly invoked the provisions of Section 22-C and decide the dispute against the wishes of the party. Learned counsel submits that the Chapter VI A enacted in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is incorporated essentially with the object and power to settle disputes at the pre-litigation stage and for the said purpose sub-sections 4 to 7 of Section 22-C require conciliation proceedings to be conducted, however, as the petitioner does not want to enter into conciliation proceedings, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot force the petitioner to participate in the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 22-C itself.

3. Learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company vs. Ajay Sinha and Another, (2008) 7 SCC 454 has observed that no one can be forced to participate in the conciliation proceedings and the Permanent Lok Adalat was required to first take consent of the parties before taking up the proceedings under Section 22-C wherein the Apex Court states as under:-

"22. The term "conciliation" is not defined under the Act. It should, therefore, be considered from the perspective of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In order to understand what Parliament meant by Conciliation, we have necessarily to refer to the functions of a 'Conciliator' as visualized by Part III of the 1996 Act. Section 67 describes the role of a conciliator. Sub-section (1) states that he shall assist parties in an independent and impartial manner. Sub-section (2) states that he shall be guided by principles of objectivity, fairness and justice, giving consideration, among other things, to the rights and obligations of the parties, the usages of the trade concerned and the circumstances surrounding the dispute, including any previous business practices between the parties. Sub-section (3) states that he shall take into account the circumstances of the case, the wishes the parties may express, including a request for oral statements. Sub-section (4) is important and permits the conciliator to make proposals for a settlement. This section is based on Article 7 of UNICTRAL Conciliation Rules.

25. Chapter VI-A stands independently. Whereas, the heading of the Chapter talks of pre- litigation, conciliation and settlement, Section 22-C(8) of the Act speaks of determination. It creates another adjudicatory authority, the decision of which by a legal fiction would be a decision of a civil court. It has the right to decide a case. The term decide means to determine to form a definite opinion to render judgment. (See Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition 2005 at 1253). Any award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat is executable as a decree. No appeal thereagainst shall lie. The decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on parties. Whereas on the one hand, keeping in view the Parliamentary intent, settlement of all disputes through negotiation, conciliation, medication, Lok Adalat and Judicial Settlement are required to be encouraged, it is equally well settled that where the jurisdiction of a court is sought to be taken away, the statutory provisions deserve strict construction. A balance is thus required to be struck. A court of law can be created under a statute. It must have the requisite infrastructure therefor. Independence and impartiality of Tribunal being a part of human right is required to be taken into consideration for construction of such a provision. When a court is created, the incumbents must be eligible to determine the lis.

26. An option is given to any party to a dispute. It may be a public utility service provider or a public utility service recipient. The