1. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly against a decision rendered by Permanent Lok Adalat at Dhanbad, on merits, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007 dated th February, 2008 (Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition)

Counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat ought not to have decided, on merits, the claim between the parties by exercising power, jurisdiction and authority under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1987”). In fact, there is no willingness, on the part of the petitioner-bank to pursue the matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat in the Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a loan amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-(Two lacs twenty five thousand) was received by the respondent from the State Bank of India towards housing loan in the year, 1995 with an interest @ 11% per annum, having equal monthly installment of Rs. 3079/-per month, on the assessable amount. Instead of making payment of the outstanding amount, an application was preferred by the respondent before Permanent Lok Adalat at Dhanbad, State of Jharkhand and Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007 was thus instituted. Upon receipt of the notice, reply was given by petitioner-bank that the borrower must produce documents and receipts for the amount deposited, as alleged by him in his application. It is stated that the bank is not liable to credit the amount for which no deposit receipt is produced nor it is a case of deficiency of services and ultimately it was stated before Permanent Lok Adalat that the application preferred by the respondent deserves to be dismissed with cost. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Permanent Lok Adalat has not followed the proper procedure which is envisaged under Section 22-C of the Act 1987. Firstly it is not the role of Permanent Lok Adalat that it should decide on merits the dispute between the parties. It is further stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat, as the conciliator, must put all efforts to settle the dispute, between the parties as per sub section 7 of section 22-C of the Act 1987, which empowers that the settlement ought to have been presented before the parties by the Permanent Lok Adalat so that the petitioner-bank can think upon it and can give its suggestion for settlement. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that from the very beginning, approach of the Permanent Lok Adalat is not that of a conciliator, but, it was playing role of adjudicatory authority, which is against the provisions of Section 22-C of the Act 1987 and therefore the claim between the parties decided on merits like a judgment, by the Permanent Lok Adalat, dated 8th February, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 91 of 2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside, with cost.

3.The counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jalour Singh, as reposted in (2008) 2 SCC 660, the Permanent Lok Adalat ought not have decided the dispute between the parties as an adjudicatory authority, but, ought to have acted like a conciliator. First of all, steps should have been taken to settle the matter between the parties and suggestions and conditions in the form of settlement ought to have been presented by the Permanent Lok Adalat before the parties, so that the parties to the disputes, especially the petitioner, could have pointed out its own suggestions, for better settlement. Such opportunity ought to have been given, which is envisaged in Sub Section 7 of Section 22-C of the Act 1987.

4.Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by a division bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand, as reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 513, and pointed out that the Permanent Lok Adalat instead of de