JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petitions have been filed primarily challenging the orders dated 26th March, 2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro in P.L.A. Case nos.124, 127, 126 & 125/2020, respectively, whereby objection(s) raised by the petitioner(s) with regard to its jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent no.1 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro while passing the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2021 has observed that the instant cases were filed and registered as pre litigation cases for the sole purpose of mediation/conciliation and not for adjudication so as to look into the aspect of jurisdiction. The Permanent Lok Adalat in making such observation has committed an error since as per sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, if the parties fail to reach at an agreement during conciliation process under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to decide the dispute, if the same does not relate to any offence.

3. It is further submitted that, in fact, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner, (said to be a public utility company) and the respondent no.1, rather there is a contract between the respondent no.1 and respondent nos.2/3. In fact, the respondent-HSCL is contractor of the petitioner and the respondent no.1 is sub-contractor of the respondent-HSCL. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner comes under the ambit of public utility services, there being no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The impleadment of the petitioner in the said cases filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro was itself erroneous and had the petitioner been not impleaded as party-respondent before the said Lok Adalat, the case filed by the respondent no.1 would not have been amenable to the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat. The said aspect was required to be considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro in terms with the mandate of Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submission, puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. G. S. Jayarama, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 of the respective writ petitions jointly submit that as per section 22-C(7) of the Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to settle the dispute brought before it by conducting conciliation/ mediation proceedings between the concerned parties on the terms which may be acceptable to the parties who after reaching an agreement are required to sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof furnishing a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.

6. It is further submitted that a dispute coming before the Permanent Lok Adalat may have some commercial aspect but the same cannot be rejected solely on that ground. The jurisdiction of both Permanent Lok Adalat and Commercial Courts may overlap but it does not mean that the Permanent Lok Adalat will not have jurisdiction if dispute has some commercial aspect.

7. It is also submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat has registered the said cases as pre-litigation cases only for the purpose of conciliation and mediation. However, if the parties fails to reach an agreement through conciliation, role of Permanent Lok Adalat converts into an adjudicatory body by assuming adjudicatory function but in the present case neither the conciliation has started nor the Permanent Lok Adalat has passed any order as an adjudicatory body.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 adopts the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the said cases filed by the respondent no.1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro was not amenable to its jurisdiction.

9. Heard the