JUDGMENT 1. - By an application being I.A. No.6370/2008, the petitioner seeks to take on record the documents Annex.7 and Annex.8 annexed with the application. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is allowed. The documents annexed with the application are taken on record. 3. By the instant writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Insurance Company has challenged the Award Annex.6 dated 28.07.2007 passed by the respondent Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur (for short 'the Lok Adalat' hereinafter). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the award impugned as also the material available on record. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner company undertakes and covers the risk of the persons holding Kishan Credit Card (for short 'KCC' hereinafter) on receipt of the premium from the bank advancing the amount to the holder of the KCC. However, according to the policy Annex.8, the policy will cover the KCC holders up to the age of 70 years and whose names are declared by the banks and in respect of whom the premium is paid by the banks to the insurance, company. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the person deceased Bhaguram KCC holder and the risk of which covered by the petitioner insurance company, on the date of receipt of the premium on 28.02.2005 has attained the age of 70 years and therefore, the insurance company is not liable. By Annex.7 list of KCC holders whose premium has been remitted by the bank to the petitioner insurance company and which has been received by the insurance company, has been placed on record. The name of deceased Bhaguram appears at serial No.82 in Annex.7 showing premium having been received by the insurance company. By Annex.7 list of KCC holders whose premium has been remitted by the bank to the petitioner insurance company and which has been received by the insurance company, has been placed on record. The name of deceased Bhaguram appears at serial No.82 in Annex.7 showing premium having been received by the insurance company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on a document i.e. Electron Voter Card said to be issued by the Election Commission of India showing the tentative age of the deceased Bhaguram 68 years as on 01.01.2003 and lastly it was contended that the respondent Lok Adalat did not follow the procedure prescribed under Sec. 22(c)(7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987' hereinafter) which provides that when a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Another v. Jalour Singh and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Lok Adalat have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the Court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. 7. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the Court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No Lok Adalat has the power to "hear" parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. 7. From the perusal of the award Annex.6, it appears that such a contention was raised before the Lok Adalat as well, but the Lok Adalat held that from the Election Voter Card, it nowhere appears that on what date the deceased person completed 70 years of age. Even otherwise, the age mentioned in such Electron Voter Card is tentative and exact dale of birth of the holder of such card has not been mentioned, it is only the age mentioned by seeing or viewing the feature of a person whose photo is affixed while getting the identity voter card prepared and therefore, it cannot be said that what the age mentioned in the card is the exact age as on the date shown in the card of a person whose name is mentioned therein. So far as the question of settlement of dispute or conciliation is concerned, Section 22(E) of the Act of 1987 clearly provides that every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. From a plain reading of Section 22(E) of the Act of 1987, it is clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide the matter either on compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties or on merit and therefore, it is not necessary that a Permanent Lok Adalat would not be competent to decide a dispute and make an award on merit when the parties do not reach on any settlement. In the instant case, it has not been disputed that the petitioner insurance company received the premium from the bank covering the risk of deceased Bhaguram.In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the respondent Lok Adalat was justified in passing the award impugned. I do not find any good ground to exercise the discretionary powers invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. I do not find any good ground to exercise the discretionary powers invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******