Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.4.2012 whereby the petitioner’s preliminary objection regarding maintainability of application before Permanent Lok Adalat has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the Act the Permanent Lok Adalat can only consider, whether a dispute can be settled by conciliation or not but where it is not possible the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate the dispute on merits. He placed reliance on Apex Court’s judgment in State of Punjab and others v. Phulan Rani and another, 2004(3) AWC 2586; State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others, AIR 2009 SC 1209 and a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Smt. Jai Devi Hans v. Smt. Beena Singh and others, AIR 2005 All 349.

3. The aforesaid judgments referred to the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1987”) prior to its amendment made in 2002 hence have no application to this case. After the amendment of Act, 1987 power of Permanent Lok Adalat in relation to adjudication has already been settled by Apex Court and the said decision has been followed by this Court also.

4. Act 1987 was enacted with an object to secure operation of legal system and promoting justice on the basis of equal opportunity. Section 22B talks of establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more “public utility services” and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. The term “Public Utility Service” has been explained in Section 22A(b) of Act 1987 and reads as under:

“public utility service” means any-

(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or

(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or

(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or

(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or

(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or

(vi) insurance service.

and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purpose of this chapter.”

5. In respect to a Public Utility Service, jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat can be invoked. A dispute can be raised before Permanent Lok Adalat provided the parties had not already taken up their matter before any Court. Making observation in the context of the provisions of Permanent Lok Adalat in Act 1987, the Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment in Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand, 2011(7) SCC 463, said:

“But in this case, the Respondent did not approach a “Court”. The claim was filed by the Respondent before a Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘LSA Act’ for short). Section 22C provides that any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute. When the statement, additional statements, replies etc., are filed in an application filed before it, the Permanent Lok Adalat is required to conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties, taking into account, the circumstances of the dispute and assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat is required to decide the dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalats are authorized to deal with and decide only disputes relating to service rendered by notified public utility services provided the value does not exceed Rupees Ten Lakhs and the dispute does not relate to a non-compoundable offence. Section 22D provides that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting the conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the LSA Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equ