The court established that the definition of public utility service does not encompass contractual transport services provided to the State, thus not qualifying for adjudication under the Act of 1987.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:

"1. The impugned order dated 10.07.2017 (Annex. 4) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. The application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be rejected.

3. The claim petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in toto with costs."

4. In the alternate, the matter may kindly be remanded back to the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur, directing it to decide the matter on merit expeditiously preferably within six months."

2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are, that a claim petition was preferred by the petitioner under Section 22B under the Public Utility Service of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1987') before the respondent No.4 to release its pending claim amount of Rs.67,79,355/- along with the interest and compensation.

Section 22B of the Act of 1987 reads as follows: -

"Section 22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, be notification, establish Permanent LokAdalat at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification.

(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of-

(a) A person who is, or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent LokAdalat and

(b) Two other persons having adequate experience in public utility services to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent LokAdalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be prescribed by the Central Government."

3. The permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the claim, while granting liberty to the petitioner to appear before the Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 25 of the Act of 1987, which, he states has an overriding effect, the same of which has to be maintained against any other law, which for the time being, in force. Section 25 of the Act of 1987, is reproduced here under:-

"25. Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."

5. That since the Act of 1987 is having an overriding effect upon the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the Permanent Lok Adalat ought to have considered the petition on merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following judgments at the bar; the relevant portions of which are as under -

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India 2012 reported in AIR SCW 4430, observed the following:

"21. The Permanent Lok Adalats under the 1987 Act (as amended by 2002 Amendment Act) are in addition to and not in derogation of Fora provided under various statutes. This position is accepted by the Central Government in their counter affidavit."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in M/s BPS Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Palwal and Ors. (CWP No. 8244 of 2016) decided on 28.11.2019. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

"2. The builder who is the present petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Permanent Lok Adalat contending that there wa