D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 103 of 2007 dated 23rd October, 2007.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has No. power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute, on merits, unless there is consent by both the parties in writing, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. The State of Jharkhand, as reported in, 2008(3) J.L.J.R. 513, and a decision, rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1449 of 2009 dated April 9, 2009 and upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, as reported in : (2008)2 SCC 660 and in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha, as reported in : (2008)7 SCC 454 and a decision, rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1168 of 2009 dated 25th May, 2009 and a decision, rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2477 of 2008 dated 26th April, 2010. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur cannot wear the robe of the Court and decide the issues on merits, even though, they are retired judges of the Court. It ought to have been kept in mind by the Permanent Lok Adalat that their primary role is to settle the matter and not to adjudicate the same. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur, hence, this order deserves to be quashed and set aside. I accept the contention raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the decisions, stated hereinabove, have already held that the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot decide the dispute, on merits under Sub -Section 8 of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The consent of the party is a must. In the facts of the present case, No. consent has been given by the present Petitioner. Moreover, there is already a Tribunal, namely, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, in existence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat has No. power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the amount of compensation on merits.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 103 of 2007 dated 23rd October, 2007.;