Union of India …… Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. Bar Council of India by means of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has raised challenge to the vires of Sections 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, ‘1987 Act’) as inserted by the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short, ‘2002 Amendment Act’). 2. By 2002 Amendment Act, in Section 22 of the 1987 Act, the words “Lok Adalat” were substituted by “Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat” and a new Chapter VIA entitled “Prelitigation Conciliation and Settlement” comprising of Sections 22A to 22E came to be inserted. In Section 23 of the 1987 Act, the words “members of the Lok Adalats” were substituted by the words “members of the Lok Adalats or the persons constituting Permanent Lok Adalats”. 3. The challenge is principally on the ground that Sections 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and 22E are arbitrary per se; violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are contrary to the rule of law as they deny fair, unbiased and evenhanded justice to all. 4. We have heard Mr. Manoj Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. S. Doabia, learned senior counsel for the Union of India. After oral arguments were over, Mr. Manoj Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written submissions. Elaborating the vice of arbitrariness in the impugned provisions, in the written submissions, it is submitted that Section 22C(1) read with Section 22C(2) provides that a dispute before Permanent Lok Adalat can be raised by moving an application to it unilaterally by any party to the dispute (before the dispute is brought before any court for settlement). The public utility service provider, thus, can play mischief by preempting an aggrieved consumer from going to the consumer fora or availing other judicial process for redressal of his grievance and enforcement of his rights. Permanent Lok Adalats have been empowered to decide dispute on merits upon failure between the parties to arrive at a settlement under Section 22C(8). While deciding the case on merits, the Permanent Lok Adalat is not required to follow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. Section 22C(8) prevents the courts and the consumer fora to examine the deficiencies in services such as transport, postal and telegraph, supply of power, light or water, public conservancy or sanitation, service in hospital, etc. and renders the provisions under challenge arbitrary and irrational. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that award of the Permanent Lok Adalat on merits is made final and binding and cannot be called in question in any forum or court of law under Section 22E(1) and (4). No right to appeal has been provided for against the award in any court of law. Since all the public utility services basically relate to the fundamental right to life provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, any adverse decision on merits by Permanent Lok Adalat would immediately impinge upon fundamental right of an aggrieved citizen and, therefore, even absence of one right of appeal makes these provisions unconstitutional as it is against the fundamental principles of fair procedure. To say that an aggrieved person can approach the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against awards given by the Permanent Lok Adalats on merits and, therefore, absence of right of appeal does not matter, is completely misplaced. The writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is extremely limited and is no substitute o