Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition, is under challenge, in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not power, jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and never any consent, much less in writing, has been given by the petitioners for deciding the dispute, on merits by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. The role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is of a conciliator and not of a adjudicator. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the requirements, as per sub-section (7) of Section22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, has also not been complied with, as per the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., as reported in 2008(3) J.L.J.R. Page-513. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is also a decision, rendered by this Court in the case d Eastern-Central Railway & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Verma & Ors., as reported in 2009(4).J.L.J.R. Page-129, wherein also, it has been decided that unless a consent is given in writing by both the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat has not power, jurisdiction and authority to decide thed1spute between the parties under sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Even otherwise also, in the facts of the present case, right from the written statement, paragraph no. 2 onwards, filed by the present petitioners in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, the claim of the petitioners has been denied and the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat has also been denied and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions and looking to the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the impugned order, passed by the Permanent lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has. submitted that the present petitioners, who are original respondents in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, have never objected when the decision, on merits, was given by the Permanent Lok Adalat and, therefore, the decision, rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, is in consonence with the provisions of the legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Even otherwise also, there is no illegality, pointed out by the petitioners in the impugned order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quashed and set• aside the impugned order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, dated 2nd January, 2008 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, mainly for the following facts and reasons:-

(I) The present petitioners were the original respondents/defendants in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 132 of 2007, instituted by the present respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur. Looking to the written statement, tiled by the present petitioners, right from paragraph no. 2 onwards, it appears that the petitioners have raised an objection about the claim of the petitioner (respondent herein) and it has also been mentioned that the claim of the petitioner (respondent herein) is not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Likewise, there are further disagreements for decision, on merits, in paragraph nos. 8, 11 and 18 of the written statement.

(II) It appears from the facts of the case that the Permanent Lok Adalat has never offered the terms of settlement, as required under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of