JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Alok Lal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. 3. In spite of service of notice upon respondent no. 5, nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 5. 4. Heard Mr. Ramiz Jafar, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Ranchi in PLA Case No. 1616 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the learned Permanent Lok Adalat Ranchi has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 as interim compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, within 30 days of the order subject to adjustment under section 166 of the said act and recover the same from the owner i.e. Respondent No. 6. (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents declaring that the liability of the insurer does not cover gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle and hence the insurer is not liable to indemnify the Insured for any loss; (iii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents declaring that Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub section (1) of section 22-B of The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, does not have the jurisdiction to decide a dispute when there exists no element of settlement in the conciliation proceedings, which may be acceptable to the parties 5. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat has submitted that the impugned order is perverse as the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has decided the case on merit under Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 without taking any step for conciliation under Sub section 4,5,6, 7 of Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. He submits that this is apparent from the impugned order itself. The impugned order does not indicate undertaking or conduct of any conciliation proceeding prior to entering into the dispute and deciding the same on merits. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 4989 of 2004 passed on 23.04.2010 and has referred to paragraph no. The impugned order does not indicate undertaking or conduct of any conciliation proceeding prior to entering into the dispute and deciding the same on merits. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 4989 of 2004 passed on 23.04.2010 and has referred to paragraph no. 10 to submit that it has been held by this Court that before invoking its powers under section 22 C of the aforesaid Act and for deciding the dispute referred to it on merits, steps under sub section 4 to 7 of Section 22 C has to be under taken. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand do not dispute this legal position but submits that Permanent Lok Adalat must have taken recourse to sub section 4 to 7 of Section 22 C of the said Act before exercising powers under sub section 8 of Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to decide the dispute on merits. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record this court finds that no counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat there is no indication as to whether any steps for conciliation has been undertaken by the Permanent Lok Adalat under sub section 4 to 7 of section 22 C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In view of the point raised by the counsel for the petitioner in connection with exercise of jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat, it is the specific case of the petitioner that no step for conciliation was taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat before entering into the dispute. There is nothing on record to controvert this stand of the petitioner. Accordingly, this court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat in the instant case has exercised power under sub section 8 of Section 22 C of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 without taking recourse for conciliation under sub section 4 to sub section 7 of Section 22 C of the said Act. Accordingly this court finds that condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction to decide the case on merit under sub section 8 of Section 22 C of the aforesaid Act of 1987 by Permanent Lok Adalat has not been satisfied and therefore the impugned order is perverse. 8. Accordingly this court finds that condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction to decide the case on merit under sub section 8 of Section 22 C of the aforesaid Act of 1987 by Permanent Lok Adalat has not been satisfied and therefore the impugned order is perverse. 8. In this view of the aforesaid findings this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi dated 14.02.2007 in PLA Case No. 1616 of 2006 is set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 9. However, it will be open to the private respondent herein to get their grievance redressed in accordance with law.