Order Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Dhanbad dated, 21st February, 2008 in T.(M.V.) Suit Compensation Case No. 229 of 2006, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad has no power, jurisdiction or authority under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (in short "the Act, 1987") to decide the issue, on merits, without consent of the present petitioner and the present petitioner has never given any consent to Ure Permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad to decide the dispute between the parties, on merits. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Kartik Gorain & Ors. as reported in 2009(4) JLJR 412 , the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, as required under sub-section 7 of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987 also, no terms of settlement were offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat and therefore also, there is a violation of sub-section 7 of Section 22-C of the Act and hence also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat has decided the whole case, on merits, though there is no consent given by the parties, in writing, for decision on merits. Moreover, no terms of settlement were offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, as required under sub-section 7 of Section 22-C of the Act, 1987. 3. It has been held by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Kartik Gorain & Ors. as reported in 2009(4) JLJR 412 , especially in paragraph 4, which reads as under:- "4. It has been held in the aforesaid decisions that it is a duty vested in the Permanent Lok Adalats that by using their wisdom. knowledge and experience, terms of settlement ought to have been offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat on its own to the parties to the dispute. Thereafter, sometime ought to be granted to the parties to the dispute. knowledge and experience, terms of settlement ought to have been offered by the Permanent Lok Adalat on its own to the parties to the dispute. Thereafter, sometime ought to be granted to the parties to the dispute. If they are offering their terms of settlement, it can be accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat and if they are accepting the terms of settlement, offered by Permanent Lok Adalat, then only, an award can be passed. But directly, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot take a decision. on merits. Still there is an intervening stage. There must be a written consent by the parties to the dispute, given to the Permanent Lok Adalat for deciding the dispute on merits. Unless there is a written consent by the parties to the dispute, given to the Permanent Lok Adalat, for deciding the dispute, on merits, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall have no power to decide the issues, on merits, as has been held in the aforesaid decision, rendered by this Court dated April 9, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1449 of 2008." Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision also, unless the parties to the dispute has not given consent, in writing, the Permanent Lok Adalat, has no power, jurisdiction or authority to decide the dispute, on merits. Permanent Lok Adalat cannot wear the robe of the Court. The role of a Permanent Lok Adalat is of a conciliator and not of an adjudicator. 4. In view of these facts, I, hereby, quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, 'Dhanbad dated 21st February, 2008 in T.(M.V.) Suit Compensation Case No. 229 of 2006 (at Annexure-1 to the memo of the present petition). 5. This writ petition is allowed, in view of the aforesaid observations.