JUDGMENT: 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 16th of December, 2007, has decided the dispute, on merits, in Prelitigative Case No. 15 of 2006 (Annexure -3 to the memo of petition) though there is no power, jurisdiction and authority with the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide the issue, on merits. 2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a direct breach of Sub-Section-(7) of Section 22-C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as well as there is a breach of Sub-Section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. The State of Jharkhand, as reported in 2008(3) JLJR 512 as well as in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr, reported in 2009(2), JLJR 684. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, who has raised the claim before the Permanent Lokad adalat for the compensation and submitted that as per Section 22-C(8) of the Act, 1987 to be read with Section 22-D, Permanent Lok Adalat has got all power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the disputes on merits and there is no error committed by the Permanent Lok Adalat while passing an order at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition and hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, dated 16th of September, 2007 in Pre-litigative Case No. 15 of 2006, Annexure – 3 to the memo of petition, mainly for the following facts & reasons:- I. that the present Respondent No. 1 has submitted that they have preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad, for getting compensation and upon hearing the petitioner, the whole claim has been decided, on merits, and Rs. 2,50,200/-(Two Lac Fifty Thousand and Two Hundred) has been awarded. Looking to the provisions of the Act, 1987, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is totally de hors the provision of the Act, 1987. 2,50,200/-(Two Lac Fifty Thousand and Two Hundred) has been awarded. Looking to the provisions of the Act, 1987, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is totally de hors the provision of the Act, 1987. As has been held by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), reported in 2008 (3), J.L.J.R., 513, especially, in Paragraph No. 18, it is held that the duty of Permanent Lok Adalat to bring the parties to a settlement. Its predominant role is not an adjudicator, but, as a conciliator. It is the duty vested in the Permanent Lok Adalat to offer terms of settlement to the parties. In the facts of the present case, no terms of settlement were ever offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the parties. II. that it has been decided by this Court in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr, reported in 2009(2), JLJR 684, that unless the parties to the dispute give their consent in writing, Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the disputes, on merits. Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Likewise, provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are also not applicable to the matters before Permanent Lok Adalat and no appeal is tenable against the decision given by the Permanent Lok Adalat. III. In view of the aforesaid consent by all the parties to the dispute for adjudication, on merits, the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat will be alike arbitrators and once a consent is given to an Arbitrator to decide the issues on merits, the Arbitrator can decide the issues, on merits, which will be binding to the parties. Once a consent is given by the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat can exercise the powers under Sub-Section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987. In the facts of the present case, no such consent was ever given by the petitioner in writing. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and the judicial pronouncements, the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, in Pre-litigative Case No. 15 of 2006 (Annexure -3) is hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.