Honble Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners in WPC No. 6070/07 are the Branch Manager and Collection Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd., who have assailed the Award dated 13th April 2007 (signed on 16th April 2007) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in PLA Case No. 124 of 2006, whereby it has awarded a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the private respondent under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The act alleged by the private respondent for raising the dispute was relating to repossession of two trucks by the petitioner Bank for non-payment of monthly installments against the loan taken by him.

2. The petitioner in WPC No. 6586/07 is the respondent in WPC No. 6070/07 who has claimed enhancement of the amount awarded by the same award dated 13th April, 2007.

3. For determination of the whole issue, the sole question which is required to be considered and decided is, whether under the provisions of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 specially section 22A thereof which defines the public utility service, the banking service is the public utility service or not Relevant provisions of section 22-A of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 is quoted hereunder:

22A. Definitions.- In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) "Permanent Lok Adalat" means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B.

(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, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.

4. The very perusal of the said provision indicates that the banking service are not included as of now in the definition of the public utility service u/s 22-A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

5. The petitioner in WPC No. 6586/07 had however sought repeated adjournment in order to ascertain whether banking service has been declared to be a public utility service by any notification by the Central or State Government applicable in the territory of the State of Jharkhand. However, even after repeated adjournment, he has failed to produce any notification showing that the banking services in question are covered under the definition of public utility service. He has however produced a document said to have been obtained from the Web Site of Press Information Bureau, Government of India whereby banking industry has been shown to be a public utility service under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Be that as it may, the banking service involving such activities which were made subject matter of litigation before the Permanent Lok Adalat under the provisions of the Act of 1987, have not been included in the definition of the public utility service conferring jurisdiction of the said Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain and decide the dispute in question. In these circumstances, the impugned Award is wholly without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed. However, it is open to the petitioner in WPC No. 6586/07 to move before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances if otherwise available in law.

For the aforesaid reasons, WPC No. 6070/07 is allowed and WPC No. 6586/07 is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.