Order : MUNNURI LAXMAN, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is with regard to the impugned award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Jalore in Case No.05/2023 where under the claim of the respondent for reimbursement of medical bills which was spent by the respondent in a private hospital for his treatment was allowed and petitioners were directed to pay such bills. 2. The facts disclose that the respondent is a retired employee from the Transport department and after retirement, he obtained treatment in the private hospital where the respondent spent a sum of Rs.1,13,031/- and his grievance is that under the service Rules in which he was appointed and retired, he is entitled to claim of reimbursement of medical bills spent by him for his treatment. When such request was made, it was not accepted. In such circumstances, the respondent made present claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (herein after referred as ‘The Act’). 3. The case of the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat was that the respondent herein has made a claim for reimbursement of medical bills without there being any bill produced from the appropriate government hospital recognized by the government. Since no bills by recognized government hospital were produced, his claim for reimbursement was rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute of present nature. According to him, the dispute in the present case is not related to the public utility services; therefore, the impugned award is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the medical claim made before the petitioners was without any medical bills of recognized hospital. Under such circumstances, rejection was made and if respondent is aggrieved, he could have taken statutory appeal, if any, and he has no right to invoke jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim was made before the petitioners by producing all the documents showing the money spent by him for his treatment and the petitioners without considering all the documents, wrongly rejected the claim of the respondent. Under the said circumstance the respondent moved a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim was made before the petitioners by producing all the documents showing the money spent by him for his treatment and the petitioners without considering all the documents, wrongly rejected the claim of the respondent. Under the said circumstance the respondent moved a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat. He further submits that the definition part of Section 22A of the Act contains service relating to hospital which dispute is also maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat; therefore, the order impugned is passed by exercising the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. He prays to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. In light of the said submission, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to decide the issue, whether the dispute of present nature will be maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. For the purpose of determining the above issue Section 22 and 22B reads as under: - “ 22. Powers of [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat.] —(1) The [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath; (b) the discovery and production of any document; (c) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. (3) All proceedings before a [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193,219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of section195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). 22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats .—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under sub-section (1) shall consist of— (a) a person who is, or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and (b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 8. From the close reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat created under Section 22B of the Act is having jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility service. No doubt the public utility service includes hospital or dispensary, wherein the Permanent Lok Adalat will have the jurisdiction. In the present case, the petitioners are not rendering any public utility service relating to the hospital. No doubt the public utility service includes hospital or dispensary, wherein the Permanent Lok Adalat will have the jurisdiction. In the present case, the petitioners are not rendering any public utility service relating to the hospital. The dispute is with regard to the reimbursement of hospital bills spent by the respondent in a private hospital and his claim is based on service rules under which he is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills. The dispute in the present case is not in the nature of public utility service; therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the dispute of present nature. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 9. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jalore is set aside. However, the respondent is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy permitted under the law.