IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR_(QHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(227) NOfgylf /2010. PETITIONER: ' Kartik Sarkar, son of Priya La1 Sarkar, Applicant: aged about 31 years, residence of Bengali Camp, Kirahdul, District and Tahsil Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents: /,—“ 1. Uttam Karamkar, son of Shri C” Narayan Karamkar, Bengali; residence of Bengali Camp, Kirandul, Tahsil and District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. g... ‘I “”0 / Q ' 0 agi? 369 / 2. The New India Insurance Company {14w Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Jhankar Talkies, ‘ Jagdalpur, District Bastar, ’ J Chhattisgarh. ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5 M i-HGH COIJRT SF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETET§ON (227} N9. i35§ OF 2M5 @a‘ifiMner Kartik Sai’kar Versus Uttam Karamkar & Another Respondents WRIT PE'HTDN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUT§ON OF iNDlA (SB : on’bie Mg”. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) H Pvesam :- Shri C.J.K.Rao, Asivocate for the petitioner. Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No2. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on 14m they of January, 201 1} Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 31.12.200Q (Annexure P—i) passed by the Commissioner; Workmen Campeneation Act ~ cum — Assistant Labour Commissioner, .tagdaipur‘ Bastar, in Misc. Case No.53/WC Act[200§ (Kartik Sarker v. Uttam Karamkar & Another) by which the application fiieo‘ by the petitioner for permitting him to withdraw the awarded amount has been rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that white the petitioner was working as Truck Driver with the respondent No.1, the petitioner met with an accident on 16.10.2006, as a resuit of which, he sustained grievous injuries and one steel rod was inserted in the leg of-the petitioner. in a oiaim case, the leaned Commissioner vide- its award dated 28.4.2009 awarded a amount of Rs. 2,03.920/— with a direction to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000l- in the form of fixed deposit and the remaining amount of Rs. 53,920/— be handedover to the petttioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made an appiioation before the Commissioner for permitting him to withdraw the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 1,50,000f— for purchasing one vehioie i.e. Tata S for his livelihood and for further medica! treatment, which has been rejected by the learned Commissioner by the impugned order. Thus, this petition. [\) 3. i have heard Earned counsei appeamm for the parties, perwed the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. it appears that ’che teamed Commiesioner whiie rejecting the appiication of the petitimer has considered at! the aspects of the matter in its letter and spirit and further ebserved that if the entire payment has been reieased at one stroke, the future of the petitioner as welt es his dependents wouid be affected adversely. Thus, the impugned order passed by the teamed Commissioner is just, roper, and does not warrant any interference of this Court. it is a trite law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction for issue of writ of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 ot'the Constitution of indta, wouid not convert itseif into a court of appeat and indutge in re-appreoiation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere format or techntoat character. 5. tn the case on hand, no jurisdictiona! error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointedout. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Articie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of indie, is not tnciined to interfere with the impugned order which is iegal, iust and ‘ proper. (See Abdui’ Razak (D) Thr. LRS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wag/e & Otheis1 and She/mi Shyam Shetty & Another v. aajeradra Shankar Perri? 5. in view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take advantage of FDR as guarantee for the purpose of obtaining ioan at the time of purchase of vehicie, if any. Satish K. Agnihotri Jutge Sdl- ashok 2010 AIR sow i414 r (201 0) e 8pc 329 p