SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Singhal learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kartikey Saran and Shri Jahangir Haider, learned counsels for respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. The present petition is directed against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat dated 3.10.2018. The challenge is on the ground that the entire hearing of the matter had been carried out in the absence of the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat. The order passed by two non-judicial members of the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be termed to be an award within the meaning of Section 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter refer to ‘the Act, 1987’).

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the provisions of Section 22-E of the Act, 1987, which provides that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. Placing Section 22-B of the Act, 1987, it is contended that every Permanent Lok Adalat consists of a person who qualifies the requirement of being “Chairman” of the Permanent Lok Adalat and two other persons qualified for appointment as members of Permament Lok Adalat as per the qualification prescribed under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 22-B of the Act, 1987. A conjoint reading of Section 22-B(2) and Section 22-E(3) shows that no hearing can take place in the absence of the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Chairman is necessarily to remain available for any decision in a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

4. Apart from the said ground, no other objection had been taken on the merits of the award under challenge.

5. To substantiate his submissions reference has been made to the judgment of High of Jharkhand in Amod Prasad Ram v. State of Jharkhard, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority, East Singhbhum reported in, 2007 SCCOnline(Jhar) 445. Special emphasis has been given to the observations in paragraph ‘18’ of the said judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, with reference to the provisions of Section 22-E (3) of the Act, 1987, submits that the present award is a majority award having been given by two members out of three. There is nothing in the Act, 1987, which would require that the presence of Chairman is necessary for each “sitting” of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in all meetings of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the presence of Chairman is necessary, is wholly out of context and has no legal basis.

7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. For dealing with the issue in hand, it would be necessary to go through the relevant provisions of the Act, 1987, which provide for constitution and organization of Permanent Lok Adalat.

8. Relevant Chapter (vi-A) contains provisions for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. Section 22-A (a) provides for definition of Permanent Lok Adalat in Clause ‘A’ means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of Section 22-B. Section 22-B(1) provides that the Central Authority or the State Authority, as the case may be, shall establish a Permanent Lok Adalat at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction as may be specified in the notification, in respect to one or more public utility services for such areas, as indicated therein.

9. Sub-Section (2) of Section 22-B which provides for constitution of Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) reads as under:-

“(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of-

(a) a person who is, or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and

(b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central