Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although notices were issued to the opposite party No. 1, none has appeared. The petition is therefore taken up for final disposal.

2. The challenge in the instant writ petition is to an order dated 30 December 2014 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Moradabad allowing a claim laid by the first respondent in respect of a failed sterilisation procedure.

3. According to the facts as noticed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the first respondent underwent a sterilisation procedure on 18 January 2010. It is alleged that on 19 May 2013, she undertook an ultrasound examination when it was revealed that she was pregnant. She later gave birth to a girl child on 25 September 2013. In this backdrop, a claim came to be laid before the Permanent Lok Adalat for damages and compensation against the State and its officers. This claim has been allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat by awarding Rs. 1,00,000 as damages to the respondent with a further direction that in case the same is not paid within one month, it would carry interest at 7% per annum.

4. Sri Bipin Behari Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has primarily raised two contentions in support of the challenge to the Award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat. He firstly submits that the Lok Adalat has clearly failed to follow the procedure as envisaged under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 (the Act). He refers to the pleadings taken in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, in which the petitioner asserts that no conciliation proceedings were ever undertaken by the Permanent Lok Adalat and that without exhausting this avenue, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to assume jurisdiction over the dispute and rule upon the same on merits.

5. Referring to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Vijay Kumar and another, C.M.P. No. 20825 of 2010, decided on 4 January, 2012, it was submitted by Sri Pandey that the statutory obligation which stands placed upon the Permanent Lok Adalat was given a go by and an award declared against the petitioner.

6. The second contention urged in support of the challenge is that the award of damages in the absence of any finding of medical negligence is clearly unsustainable.

7. From the record, the Court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat has cryptically noted that the proceedings of conciliation came to an end on 21 November 2014. Apart from this singular recital that the award carries, no details of any conciliatory steps that were taken or initiated by the Permanent Lok Adalat in order to arrive at a settlement in between parties is elaborated upon or can be spelt out from the impugned Award. The obligation placed upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to undertake such an exercise is clearly recognised in sub-section (7) of Section 22-C of the Act. This aspect has been correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge in Reliance General Insurance Company. The learned Single Judge in the aforementioned judgment has placed reliance upon a decision of the the Gauhati High Court in Deputy Divisional Manager, Shillong and another v. Smt. Jharna Ghosh, AIR 2011 Gauhati 205, which commends notice and reiteration:

“10. It has been specifically provided in sub-section (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Section 22(C) of the Act that the Permanent Lok Adalat, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), it shall assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner, and it shall be the duty of every party to the application to co-operate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliat