Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/award dated 1.12.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Civil Court, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 1370/ 2006. It has been stated that the impugned order has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, though the consent to decide the contesting issues involved in the instant case was not given and the surveyor's report in its totality has not been considered. 2. The said order of the Permanent Lok Adalat has been challenged mainly on the grounds that: (i) there was no consent of the parties to decide any contesting issue involved in the case, (ii) the surveyor's report has not been taken into consideration, and (iii) the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide any contesting issue between the parties after failure of conciliation. In the instant case, the Permanent Lok Adalat has gone beyond the terms of the settlement and has passed the impugned award fixing a liability for which the petitioner had never consented. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondent were present before the Permanent Lok Adalat and on some points there was settlement between them, but the petitioner had not given consent to decide any contesting issue between the parties. In absence of clear consent for taking up and deciding any contesting issue, the impugned award/order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition. It has been, inter alia, stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a dispute, if the parties fail to arrive at settlement under the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act']. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said question is no more res integra and in Interglobe Aviation Limited. V5. N. Satchidanand [ (2011)7 SCC 463 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the provisions of the said Act including Section 22-C(8) thereof. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. On going through the record, I find that certain amount• claimed by the respondent was disputed by the petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat, had assessed the amount and found that the respondent was further entitled to get Rs.4,08,282/-. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. On going through the record, I find that certain amount• claimed by the respondent was disputed by the petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat, had assessed the amount and found that the respondent was further entitled to get Rs.4,08,282/-. The Insurance Company has challenged the said amount on the ground that the Permanent• Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to determine the amount payable by them to the respondent. 7. In Interglobe Aviation Limited, (supra), the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and has held thus:- "Para-27: The nature of proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat is initially a conciliation which is non-adjudicatory in nature. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement by conciliation, the Permanent Lok Adalat mutates into an adjudicatory body, by deciding the dispute. In short, the procedure adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat is what is popularly known as "CON-ARB" (that is, "conciliation-cum-arbitration") in the United States, where the parties can approach a neutral third party or authority for conciliation and if the conciliation fails, authorize such neutral third party-or authority to decide the dispute itself, such decision being final and binding. The concept of "CONARB" before a Permanent Lok Adalat is completely different from the concept of judicial adjudication by the Courts governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Permanent Lok Adalat not being a "court", the provision in the contract relating to exclusivity of jurisdiction of courts at Delhi will not apply." 8. In M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ranchi vs. Bodya Oraon & Am. [W.P.(C) No. 1975/2007*], a Division Bench of this Court considering various decisions including the said decision of the Apex Court has also held that the Permanent Lok Adalat after following the procedure and making all' efforts of settlement and upon failing of the parties to arrive at settlement and procedure to adjudicate under sub-section 8 of Section 22(C) of the said Act, can adjudicate upon the dispute. 9. In view of the above, I find no substance in the said grounds for challenging the said award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. So far as the ground of non-consideration of the surveyor's report is concerned, the Hbn'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS. 9. In view of the above, I find no substance in the said grounds for challenging the said award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. So far as the ground of non-consideration of the surveyor's report is concerned, the Hbn'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS. 'Pradeep Kumar [(2009) CPJ 46(SC) has clearly held that the surveyor's report is not a last and final order. It is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured and only on that basis the award cannot be interfered. 10. In view of the above discussions, I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. 11. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.