JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner - none other than the country's biggest public sector bank, has challenged the order dated 30.4.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner.

2. Petitioner bank had extended cash credit facility of Rs. 3 lacs to the respondent Dungar Garments, which had failed to fulfill its commitment. On respondent's failure to pay the dues, the petitioner-bank approached Permanent Lok Adalat, constituted under the provisions of Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1987 or the Act) and prayed that an award for sum of Rs. 2,96,828/- alongwith applicable interest be issued in its favour.

3. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat rejected petitioner's application at the threshold, inter alia, observing that the Act of 1987 does not permit filing of the petition by the bank. According to the Lok Adalat only a person aggrieved of the public utility service can invoke the provisions of the Act of 1987.

4. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.4.2019, passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat contended that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in rejecting petitioner's petition under Section 22C of the Act of 1987, summarily, without even issuing a notice to the respondent-borrower.

5. Inviting attention of the Court towards provisions of Section 22A of the Act and the notification dated 29.12.2014, he submitted that the banking and financial services are indisputably covered under the definition of public utility service. Expanding his arguments further, he argued that Section 22C of the Act while conferring the power of taking cognizance under the Act of 1987 has used expression "any party to a dispute", hence, the restrictive meaning given by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, that the bank cannot approach the Permanent Lok Adalat, is contrary to the express provision contained in Section 22C of the Act.

6. Learned counsel argued that the provisions of Section 22C of the Act does not provide any restriction on the bank from filing a petition under Section 22C of the Act and that expression "any party", is wide enough to include everyone, including the bank. The respondent-borrower has failed/refused to fulfill his commitment, hence, the bank was legally entitled and justified in invoking the provisions of the Act of 1987, as their existed a dispute.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant provision and the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

8. The question is short and precise, but has larger repercussions. This Court has to tread on practically a fresh turf as the same does not seem to have been decided by any Court, so far. It would be apt to keep all the relevant provisions handy, the same are being reproduced hereunder:-

"22A. Definitions.-In this Chapter and for the purpose of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires;-

(a) "Permanent Lok Adalat" means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B;

(b) "public utility service" means any-

(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or

(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or

(vi) Insurance service,

(vii) Banking and Financial

(viii) Housing and Estates

(ix) Liquified Petroleum Gas Services,

and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this chapter.

Inserted vide notification No. F8(1) Law-2/2014 dated 19.1.2019 published in Rajasthan Gazette

22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority s