JUDGMENT : This writ petition raises an important question as to the authority of the Permanent Lok Adalath in deciding a dispute as contemplated under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The insurer challenges an Award of the Permanent Lok Adalath on the ground that it has no authority to adjudicate and decide a dispute which primarily revolved around the validity of a contract. 3. The insurer-New India Assurance Company Ltd. rejected the benefit under a medi claim insurance policy on the ground of suppression of material facts. The insured had taken the policy on 10.10.2005. The insured claimed reimbursement for renal treatment and liver disease. The insurer repudiated the claim pointing out pre-existing disease which was suppressed while taking the policy. 4. Based on the application before the Permanent Lok Adalath, conciliation proceedings were initiated as referrable under Section 22C(7) of the Act. The conciliation failed. Thereafter the Permanent Lok Adalath decided the dispute. The insurer objected to the authority of the Permanent Lok Adalath in deciding the dispute by pointing out that it cannot decide a dispute in regard to validity of a contract. Permanent Lok Adalath overruled the objection. The Permanent Lok Adalath observed that there was no suppression to hold that the contract was vitiated by misrepresentaiton. After entering into such findings, the Permanent Lok Adalath ordered the insurer to reimburse the expenses incurred by the insured. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer argued by referring to the various provisions of the Act. According to the learned counsel, though the Permanent Lok Adalath has jurisdiction, being insurance service one of the service coming under the 'public utility service' referrable under Section 22A of the Act, it has no authority to decide the question regarding the validity of a contract. In other words, the arguments were that the Permanent Lok Adalath is having only the authority to decide the question emanating from the contractual obligation and not upon the validity of a contract. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalath has no authority to interpret the contract and adjudicate such disputes as a Civil Court. Learned counsel points out that the word 'power to decide' as referred in Section 22C(8) of the Act has to be distinguished from the word 'power to adjudicate'. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalath has no authority to interpret the contract and adjudicate such disputes as a Civil Court. Learned counsel points out that the word 'power to decide' as referred in Section 22C(8) of the Act has to be distinguished from the word 'power to adjudicate'. His submission was that the 'power to decide' would arise only when there are elements of settlement exist between the parties and if there are no elements of settlement, the Adalath has no power to adjudicate. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insured submits that the Permanent Lok Adalath is specifically constituted with certain broad objects to cater larger public interest. According to him, the very purpose of conferring the limited jurisdiction to 'decide the dispute' in relation to public utility service is to subserve the public interest and to provide quality justice at minimum cost to the public. Learned counsel pointed out that the Permanent Lok Adalath is headed by a retired District Judge. 7. It is appropriate to refer to the various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Legal Services Authorities Act was enacted to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society and to organise Lok Adalath to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity. In the original enactment, the statutory provisions had not conceived the Permanent Lok Adalath. Before the inclusion of Chapter VIA covering the provisions relating to Permanent Lok Adalath, statutory provisions had only envisaged the constitution of a 'Lok Adalath' for settling disputes amicably between the parties to the dispute. It was intended to reduce the burden on the Civil Court. However, drastic amendments were made in, in the year 2002 to establish a 'Permanent Lok Adalath' to exercise jurisdiction in respect of certain public utility service presided by a person who has been a District Judge or a Judicial Officer, higher in rank than a District Judge. The very purpose of bringing the public utility service under the umbrella of Permanent Lok Adalath is to ensure speedy redressal of grievances against such public body by a competent person who is having experience in the judicial field. Section 22E of the Act says that every Award of the Permanent Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on all the parties. Section 22E of the Act says that every Award of the Permanent Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on all the parties. The Parliament therefore intended that normal adjudicatory process shall be avoided so as to ensure speedy justice to a litigant. 8. In the backdrop of the legislative provisions as above, this Court has to consider the scope of power of a Permanent Lok Adalath to decide a dispute brought before it. The cognizance of case by the Permanent Lok Adalath is based on an application made by the parties for settlement of the disputes. The parties are allowed to raise their pleadings. If additional statements are required, such pleadings can also be allowed. The parties are also allowed to bring evidence. Thereafter the Permanent Lok Adalath will conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties. As seen from sub section 7 to Section 22C of the Act, when a Permanent Lok Adalath in the conciliation proceedings forms an opinion as to the existence of 'elements of settlement', it would formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned to elicit their observations. If the parties arrive at a settlement of such disputes, the Permanent Lok Adalath will pass an Award in terms of such agreement. If the parties fail to reach at an agreement, it will decide the dispute other than the dispute relatable to any offence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner's argument was highlighting dependence of the power to decide the dispute on the 'existence of elements of settlement'. According to him, when the parties take extreme position in a dispute without a leeway for conciliation, the Adalath has no power to decide the dispute. 10. It is appropriate to refer various judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court in this context. 11. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Ajay Sinha and another ( (2008) 7 SCC 454 ), the Supreme Court had considered the authority of the Permanent Lok Adalath to adjudicate a dispute which also involved a crime. It was opined that conciliation as referred under the Act achieves a different purpose and the Permanent Lok Adalath cannot assume the role of an adjudicator from the very beginning and held that the Permanent Lok Adalath cannot adjudicate a dispute which involved a question as to commission of offence. 12. It was opined that conciliation as referred under the Act achieves a different purpose and the Permanent Lok Adalath cannot assume the role of an adjudicator from the very beginning and held that the Permanent Lok Adalath cannot adjudicate a dispute which involved a question as to commission of offence. 12. In Bar Council of India vs. Union of India (2012 (3) KLT 557) where the vires of various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act was challenged by the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court, after upholding the vires of the Act, observed that the Permanent Lok Adalath has to decide the dispute with fairness and following the principles of natural justice. 13. A Division Bench of this Court, in Ambika Kumary (Dr.) and others vs. State of Kerala and others ( 2011 (2) KLT 673 ), held that the Permanent Lok Adalath can decide a dispute on merit by themselves, on failure of parties to settle the dispute through conciliation. A learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Jameela and others (W.P.(C) No.30059 of 2008 and connected matters) had taken a view that a Permanent Lok Adalath is competent to decide contentious issues as well. 14. Perhaps in the context of the present dispute, it is necessary to delve into various aspects of adjudication. Is there any difference between 'adjudication' and 'power to decide' as referred under Section 22(C)(8) of the Act? I am of the view that it has fundamental difference. An 'adjudication' may involve determination of rights and obligations of parties and also ascertainment of facts. Adjudicatory process is understood as a comprehensive procedure to decide all the aspects covering a dispute. For example, a Civil Court has competency to decide on the rights and obligations as well as on ascertainment of facts by means of evidence. The rights and obligations involve interpretation of contract, interpretation of law etc. On the other hand, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence is only a process of enquiry to evaluate the existence of facts. That does not itself involve all the process of adjudication. Such decision through evaluation of existence of facts must be relatable to pre-existing rights and liabilities. On the other hand, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence is only a process of enquiry to evaluate the existence of facts. That does not itself involve all the process of adjudication. Such decision through evaluation of existence of facts must be relatable to pre-existing rights and liabilities. On a clear distinction as to the legal position as above, it can be seen that the Permanent Lok Adalath is competent only to decide a dispute by ascertaining the existence of facts through means of evidence based on preestablished rights and liabilities. It has no full-fledged power as of an adjudicator to decide all the aspects of a dispute. Its power to decide therefore would depend upon the established pre-existing rights and liabilities. It cannot determine or decide any questions of rights and obligations. It can decide only such aspects that emanate out of the established rights and obligations. If there is any dispute as to the existence of rights and obligations, the Permanent Lok Adalath cannot assume jurisdiction to decide such dispute. This is so clear from the combined reading of sub sections 7 and 8 of 22C of the Act. The authority to decide a dispute therefore available to Permanent Lok Adalath only when there is an element of settlement referable to the pre-existing rights and obligations. The scope of settlement would arise only when the parties admit their rights and obligations. In the event the rights and obligations itself are in dispute, the Permanent Lok Adalath cannot shift its role as an adjudicator from the beginning itself to decide the dispute. 15. In this matter, the petitioner-company repudiated the claim on account of suppression of material facts. In such circumstances, whether the contract is vitiated or not cannot be gone into through the enquiry of the Permanent Lok Adalath. In such circumstances, the Permanent Lok Adalath has no competency to decide the dispute even though it has jurisdiction to entertain such claim. The Permanent Lok Adalath has jurisdiction as the petitioner-Insurance Company is a public utility service. That itself will not confer it an authority to decide a dispute. The competency would depend upon the nature of dispute. It can be ascertained only after appearance of the opposite party. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to approach the Insurance Ombudsman or any other forum. That itself will not confer it an authority to decide a dispute. The competency would depend upon the nature of dispute. It can be ascertained only after appearance of the opposite party. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to approach the Insurance Ombudsman or any other forum. In such an event, the delay involved in the proceedings upto the judgment shall be condoned. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.