JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Permanent Lok Adalat deciding case No.13/2003 (PLA) dated 31.7.2003 whereby the dispute between the parties for supply of a Submersible Pump Set for Rs.9,675/- on 14.4.2003 was decided by Permanent Lok Adalat directing the non-applicant to refund a sum of Rs.23,914/-. 2. The non-applicant M/s Ambika Sales Corporation has approached this Court by way of present writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22B of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 on the ground that since neither of the parties involved in the dispute is public utility service, the said Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to deal with such dispute. 3. Chapter VI-A inserted in the aforesaid Act w.e.f. 11.6.2002 by Amendment Act No. 37 of 2002 deals with Pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. Section 22A(b) defines "public utility service" to mean any transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water or postal, telegraph or telephone service or supply of power, light, water to the public by any establishment or system of public conservancy or sanitation or service in hospital or dispensary or insurance service and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter. 4. Section 22B(1) clearly delineates jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats dealing with dispute relating to public utility service in the following terms: "Section 22-B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec.19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification." 5. Admittedly, in the present case, neither of the parties is a public utility service and the dispute pertains to purely a trading transaction between the two private parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Rita Kumari Shahu @ Saha v. Shyam Sundar Shahu, reported in 2006(4) CCC 414 (Cal) . The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Rita Kumari Shahu @ Saha v. Shyam Sundar Shahu, reported in 2006(4) CCC 414 (Cal) . wherein the order of Permanent Lok Adalat deciding a matrimonial dispute under the said provisions of Section 22 was held to be without jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. 6. On the side opposite, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1999 Delhi 88 Abdul Hasan and National Legal Services Authority v. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors. wherein the Court dealing with preamendment position explained the need of setting up of Permanent Lok Adalats to resolve such disputes relating to public utility services. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that Permanent Lok Adalat in the impugned order has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 22B of the Act in deciding trading dispute between the parties because the said provision does not authorise the Permanent Lok Adalat to deal with such disputes, where no public utility service is involved. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.7.2003, Annex.5 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******