1. The present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Garhwa vide order dated 25th September, 2008 in P.L.A. Case No. 10 of 2008, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the present petition and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute on merits. Catena of decisions has been rendered by this Court, which are reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 513, 2009 (3) JCR 374 and 2009 (4) JCR 455. Never any consent has been taken by the petitioner before passing decision on merits of the dispute by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Prime duty of the Permanent Lok Adalat is of conciliator and not of adjudicator. Permanent Lok Adalat can not wear a rob of the Court. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Permanent Lok Adalat and, hence, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-State, who has submitted that no error has been committed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in deciding the dispute on merits, looking to sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Garhwa dated 25th September, 2008 in P.L.A. Case No. 10 of 2008 (Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition) mainly for the following facts and reasons:-

(i) It appears that Permanent Lok Adalat has lost sight of the fact that prime duty of the Permanent Lok Adalatis to play role of a conciliator and not of an adjudicator. Until and unless written consent by the parties to the dispute, no decision on merits can be given by the Permanent Lok Adalat. (ii) By obtaining consent in writing, Permanent Lok Adalat will work as an arbitrator and the decision will be binding to the consent of the parties. The role of Permanent Lok Adalat will be, after obtaining written consent like an arbitrator otherwise Permanent Lok Adalat can never decide the dispute on merits between the parties.

(iii) It has been held by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. as reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 513 that it is the prime duty vested in the Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-Section (7) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1987) to offer the terms of the settlement. If the terms of the settlement have not been offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat then, no decision can be given on merits. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"18. In the instant case, the respondents claim compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) and cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) on the allegation that his telephone connection remain out of order for about one month i.e. from 8.5.2005 to 2.6.2005. The appellant refuted the said allegation and stated that because of cable fault, the telephone remains out of order and as per the departmental rule, a rebate was sanctioned for the interruption and thereby respondent was adequately compensated. Inspite of the aforesaid fact, Permanent Lok Adalat exercised the adjudicatory role and ignoring the Telegraph Act and the Rules, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- without any basis. In our opinion, instead of exercising adjudicatory role, the Permanent Lok Adalat ought to have acted in such a manner to bring the parties into a settlement. The duty of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to bring the parties to a settlement and to pass award instead of adjudicating a dispute and pass an award without taking notice of the Act and the Rules under which claim was entertainable. In our considered opinion, Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to directly invoke the provi