JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petitions have been filed primarily challenging the orders dated 26th March, 2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro in P.L.A. Case nos.124, 127, 126 & 125/2020, respectively, whereby objection(s) raised by the petitioner(s) with regard to its jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent no.1 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro while passing the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2021 has observed that the instant cases were filed and registered as pre litigation cases for the sole purpose of mediation/conciliation and not for adjudication so as to look into the aspect of jurisdiction. The Permanent Lok Adalat in making such observation has committed an error since as per sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, if the parties fail to reach at an agreement during conciliation process under sub-section (7) of Section 22-C, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to decide the dispute, if the same does not relate to any offence. 3. It is further submitted that, in fact, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner, (said to be a public utility company) and the respondent no.1, rather there is a contract between the respondent no.1 and respondent nos.2/3. In fact, the respondent-HSCL is contractor of the petitioner and the respondent no.1 is sub-contractor of the respondent-HSCL. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner comes under the ambit of public utility services, there being no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The impleadment of the petitioner in the said cases filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro was itself erroneous and had the petitioner been not impleaded as party-respondent before the said Lok Adalat, the case filed by the respondent no.1 would not have been amenable to the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat. The said aspect was required to be considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro in terms with the mandate of Section 22(C)(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submission, puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. G. S. Jayarama, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776 . 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submission, puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. G. S. Jayarama, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 776 . 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 of the respective writ petitions jointly submit that as per section 22-C(7) of the Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to settle the dispute brought before it by conducting conciliation/ mediation proceedings between the concerned parties on the terms which may be acceptable to the parties who after reaching an agreement are required to sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof furnishing a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. 6. It is further submitted that a dispute coming before the Permanent Lok Adalat may have some commercial aspect but the same cannot be rejected solely on that ground. The jurisdiction of both Permanent Lok Adalat and Commercial Courts may overlap but it does not mean that the Permanent Lok Adalat will not have jurisdiction if dispute has some commercial aspect. 7. It is also submitted that Permanent Lok Adalat has registered the said cases as pre-litigation cases only for the purpose of conciliation and mediation. However, if the parties fails to reach an agreement through conciliation, role of Permanent Lok Adalat converts into an adjudicatory body by assuming adjudicatory function but in the present case neither the conciliation has started nor the Permanent Lok Adalat has passed any order as an adjudicatory body. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 adopts the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the said cases filed by the respondent no.1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro was not amenable to its jurisdiction. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 10. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 11. Section 22-B of the Act, 1987 provides for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services. 12. 10. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 11. Section 22-B of the Act, 1987 provides for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services. 12. Public utility service has been defined under Clause (b) of section 22- A which reads as under:- “(b) “public utility service” means any— (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, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.” 13. Thus, the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction only with respect to public utility services as mentioned in clause (b) of section 22-A as well as any service which has been included by the Central Government or the State Government as public utility service. Since the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat is defined, no other services are entertain able by it. 14. Section 22-C provides that any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute. As per Clause (7) of section 22-C, when a Permanent Lok Adalat during conciliation proceedings between the concerned parties considers that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. Further, as per Clause (8), where the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. 15. Further, as per Clause (8), where the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. 15. Thus, on failure of conciliation between the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (Supra.) has held that as per section 22-C of the Act, 1987, a party to a dispute, prior to bringing a dispute before the court i.e. at the pre-litigation stage, can make an application to a Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of a dispute. The Permanent Lok Adalat would first conduct conciliation proceedings and attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. However, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, it shall decide the dispute, if the dispute does not relate to an offence. Section 22-D of the Act, 1987 further indicates that the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits. 16. In the case in hand, the petitioner filed applications in the aforesaid PLA cases challenging the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the applications preferred by the respondent no.1 for payment of remainder amount of security deposits. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro rejected the said applications filed by the petitioner holding that the said cases were filed by the respondent no.1 as prelitigation cases for the sole purpose of mediation/conciliation and not for adjudication; for which the jurisdiction was not required to be considered. 17. This Court is of the view that such observation made by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro while rejecting the applications of the petitioner is not in consonance with the provisions of Act, 1987 as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (Supra.). Applications are filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute through conciliation/mediation, however, on failure of conciliation proceeding, the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to decide the dispute, if the dispute does not relate to any offence. The claim of the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro was that it is engaged in power and steam generation which is supplied to SAIL, Bokaro for fulfilling its process requirement and not to general public and, therefore, it cannot be said to be providing public utility service. The claim of the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro was that it is engaged in power and steam generation which is supplied to SAIL, Bokaro for fulfilling its process requirement and not to general public and, therefore, it cannot be said to be providing public utility service. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends before this Court that even if the petitioner is regarded as providing public utility service, then also there being no privity of contract between it and the respondent no.1, its impleadment in the case filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro is erroneous/unwarranted. This Court is of the view that such questions raised by the petitioner was required to be decided by the said Permanent Lok Adalat before proceeding further in the matter. 19. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bokaro for passing a fresh order on the objection raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the said cases filed by the respondent no.1 of the respective writ petitions. 20. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.