Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat whereby the Lok Adalat has issued a direction to the respondent-J.S.E.B. to give electric connection to the respondent no. 4 who, according to the petitioner, is a tenant in the house of which the petitioner claims himself to be the landlord. 3. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, the house had earlier belonged to one Gita Biswas widow of late Kanhai .Lal Biswas. The petitioner claims to have purchased the house under a registered sale deed from the erstwhile owner. It is also claimed that the present respondent no. 4 was originally inducted as a tenant in the house by the erstwhile owner and later, upon the house being transferred to the present petitioner, appropriate notice was given to the respondent no. 4 both by the erstwhile owner as well as by the petitioner calling upon the respondent no. 4 to continue payment of monthly rent to the petitioner, who is the present landlord of the house. It is alleged that the respondent no. 4 has failed to pay the monthly rent to the petitioner and on account of the default, the petitioner has already instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent no. 4 from the premises which is presently being contested by the Respondent NO.4. It is further informed that since the erstwhile owner of the house had surrendered the electric connection of the house the respondent no. 4 had applied directly to the Electricity Board for extending the electric connection to the portion under her occupation. The Electricity Board refused the request of the respondent no. 4 on the ground that unless she obtains a no objection certificate from the landlord such connection cannot be extended to her. Respondent No. 4 thereafter filed a writ application before his Court for the same relief vide W.P.(C) No. 3090 of 2006 but the same was dismissed. Later, the respondent no. 4 appr9aclied the Vidyut Upvokta Sikayat Niwaran Forum with the same relief but there also her prayer was rejected. Subsequently, the Respondent No 4 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for the same relief, and that too without even impleading the petitioner in her application, as a necessary party. The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide on the dispute without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party. Subsequently, the Respondent No 4 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for the same relief, and that too without even impleading the petitioner in her application, as a necessary party. The Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide on the dispute without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party. The Permanent Look Adalat proceeded to decide on the dispute without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party and without, offering any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and had 'passed the impugned award containing the directions as' aforementioned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 informs that the petitioner's claim, of his being landlord of the house in question, has been denied and disputed by the, respondent no. 4 and the eviction suit is 'being contested by her. 5. Learned, counsel for the respondent Electricity Board submits that the Electricity Board, in accordance with, its own Rules, cannot possibly extend the electric connection to a tenant of the house unless the landlord issues a no objection certificate or permission for such separate electric connection. 6, I have heard• the counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat It appears that• even though the petitioner's title over the house' property has been denied and disputed by the respondent no. 4, but the fact remains that the petitioner has claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner of the house property by virtue of purchase of the property under a registered sale. It is established therefore that the petitioner has come into the picture and in the facts and circumstances of his claim, he is certainly a necessary party who ought to have been impleaded even by the respondent no. 4 in her application before the Lok Adalat. Apparently, for reason best known to her, the respondent no. 4 did not choose even to mention the name of the petitioner in her application before the Permanent Lok Adalat and had succeeded in obtaining the impugned award in her favour from the Permanent Lok Adalat. 7. As regards the impugned award it appears that not only the petitioner being a necessary party was not called upon to submit his stand even though ,the respondent Electricity Board had informed that the respondent .no. 4is only, a tenant in the aforesaid. 7. As regards the impugned award it appears that not only the petitioner being a necessary party was not called upon to submit his stand even though ,the respondent Electricity Board had informed that the respondent .no. 4is only, a tenant in the aforesaid. premises, but the Permanent Lok Adalat has also .failed to initiate any process of conciliation for the purpose of out of Court settlement by offering the, terms of settlement to the parties The Lok Adalat appears to have abandoned the need to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 22(C) of the Legal services Authority Act, 1987., 8. I am satisfied that the impugned award is perverse and illegal, it having been passed firstly without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party and secondly, without observing the mandatory procedures for deciding the dispute raised before it. 9. Under the circumstances, the impugned award is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 4 shall be at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate provisions of law including the provisions under the Building act, for redressal of her grievances.