JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“(a) Call for the entire records leading to Ext.P1 the impugned order and peruse the same.

(b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibit P1 order dated 9.2.2012 in OP No. 86/2011 of the Permanent Lok Adalat at Ernakulam and also dismiss Ext.P2 OP No. 86/11 of the 2011 of the Permanent Lok Adalath At Ernakulam in the interest of justice.

(c) Declare that the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide under Section 22C [8] of LSA Act, 1987,as amended in 2002, is subject to consent in writing been given by the parties to the dispute.

(d) To award the cost of the litigation.” [SIC]

2. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath, Ernakulam in OP No. 86/11 instituted by the respondent. The respondent who took the telephone bearing No.04829-264242 on lease from BSNL filed Ext.P1 complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the alleged inconvenience suffered by him contending that his telephone was disrupted from 25.2.2011 to 27.4.2011. He contended that the phone went out of order again on 7.6.2011 and it was restored on 30.