ORDER D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred against the order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, in Permanent Lok Adalat Case Nos. 5 & 6 of 2004 dated 11th February, 2005 (Annexure 6 to the memo of petition), mainly on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties, on merits, since never any consent, in writing, was given by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi. 2. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and has pointed out that there is gross violation of Section 22C (4) as well as Section 22C (7 & 8) of the Act, 1987 and, therefore, the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decisions, including the decision, rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2008, decided on 26th April, 2010, and submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision also, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between the parties and the Permanent Lok Adalats are not supposed to adjudicate the dispute, without there being any consent, in writing, by the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C. of India v. Suresh Kumar, as reported in (2011) SCCR 492, wherein, at paragraph No. 2, it has been held as under : 2. In our considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat which has received its affirmation at the hands of the High Court suffers from incurable legal infirmity. The permanent Lok Adalat is not a regular Court authorized to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on merits. It is needless to state that permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis, as such, between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at an agreed settlement between the parties has failed. It is a clear case where the Lok Adalat converted itself into a regular Court and disposed of the claim of the respondent on merits. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and is liable to be set aside. It is a clear case where the Lok Adalat converted itself into a regular Court and disposed of the claim of the respondent on merits. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and is liable to be set aside. The orders passed by the permanent Lok Adalat and as well as the High Court are, accordingly, set aside. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the impugned award, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, it appears that the petitioner has objected about the jurisdiction and authority of the Permanent Lok Adalat. It further appears from the raho, laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2008, disposed of on 26th April, 2010, that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute, on merits, without there being any consent, in writing, by the parties. The predominant role of the Permanent Lok Adalat is of a conciliator and not of an adjudicator. It has been held by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition that the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute, on merits, only when there is consent, in writing, by the parties, to the dispute. 6. For the reasons stated in W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2008. disposed of on 26th April, 2010, as well as in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C. of India v. Suresh Kumar, as reported in (2011) SCCR 492, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, dated 11th February, 2005 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case Nos. 5 and 6 of 2004 (Annexure 6 to the memo of petition) is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Whenever, certified copy of this order is demanded by anyone, I hereby direct the Registry to supply a certified copy of the judgment, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2008, decided on 26th April, 2010. 8. This writ petition is. hereby, allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed. Petition allowed.