ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the ex-parte order dated 01.02.2007 and award dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No. 34 of 2006. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is private finance institution engaged in the business of granting automobile loan under hypothecation agreement for private and commercial vehicle. The respondent no. 1 was granted a loan for purchasing a Tata LPT 2512 Truck under the hire-purchase agreement for a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/-, which was required to be paid back by the respondent no. 1 alongwith interest in 48 monthly installments. The respondent no. 1 had become defaulter after payment of certain installments and as per clause -6 of the Hypothecation agreement, the petitioner has took possession of the vehicle. The respondent no. 1 filed a claim petition before Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur being PLA Case No. 34 of 2006 for a claim of Rs. 8, 55,088/-under the different heads from the opposite party/petitioner herein under Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 4. It is a case of the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat has proceeded ex-parte deciding the claim on merit by directing the petitioner-Company to pay a sum of Rs. 6, 50,000/-to the applicant or to return the truck to the applicant within two months of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order and the award on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner as financial institution in the nature of loan for purchasing of vehicle under hire-purchase agreement is not one of the Public Utility Services, which is covered under the definition of 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is further submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat, has decided the claim on merit without following the procedure prescribed under Section 22 (C) (4) to (7) of the Legal Services Act by making an attempt to conciliate and/or frame terms of settlement, offered to the rival parties to arrive at compromise over the same before adjudicating the same on merit under Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Act . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner-company had illegally resumed the vehicle in question without taking recourse of law by invoking the terms of the Hypothecation agreement in a manner unknown to law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner-company had illegally resumed the vehicle in question without taking recourse of law by invoking the terms of the Hypothecation agreement in a manner unknown to law. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice upon the Company, which failed to appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the Permanent Lok Adalat had no other option, but to proceed for deciding the dispute in the ex-parte manner. However, counsel for the respondents is not able to refute the contention of the petitioner that the finance services or services of providing loan for purchase of vehicle on hire-purchase financed by such finance institution fall within the definition of Public Utility Service under Section 22A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the impugned order and award. Section 22A of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, is quoted hereinbelow:- “22A. Definition.-In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “Permanent Lok Adalat” means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of Section22-B; (b) “publicutility service”meansany- (i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water; or (ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or (iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or (iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or (v) service in hospital or dispensary; or (vi) 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.” 7. Under section 22A(b) (i) to (vi), the definition of Public Utility Service do not include the banking services or any financial institution of such nature within the purview of the Public Utility Services. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in relation to the claim made by the respondent no. 1 arising out of hire-purchase agreement/ Hypothecation agreement by which it had entered into hire-purchase agreement for the vehicle in question with the petitioner-company. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in relation to the claim made by the respondent no. 1 arising out of hire-purchase agreement/ Hypothecation agreement by which it had entered into hire-purchase agreement for the vehicle in question with the petitioner-company. It further appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 22(4) to (7) of the Act by making an attempt to conciliate and/or frame terms of settlement offered to the rival parties to arrive at compromise on the same before adjudicating the dispute on merit. 8. Be that as it may, since the aforesaid services of providing loan under hire-purchase agreement/ Hypothecation agreement by the petitioner does not fall under the public utility service under Section 22A of the Act, the impugned order and the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is wholly without jurisdiction. The Permanent Lok Adalat has proceeded assuming jurisdiction over a subject when the said services does not fall within the public utility service. In the circumstances, wrong for which the respondent no. 1 has invoked the forum of Permanent Lok Adalat, cannot be remedied by the said forum, even though the respondent no. 1 may have remedy elsewhere. 9. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.02.2007 and award dated 07.02.2007 are accordingly, quashed. 10. Respondent no. 1 is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of any other appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.