IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.No.1933 of 2009 1.K.Saraswathy 2.Manikandan (Minor) 3.Manjula (Minor) petitioners 2 and 3 rep by the 1st petitioner being mother and natural guardian .. Petitioners Vs. 1. The District Collector, M.Singaravellar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 2. The Tahsildar, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Labour Welfare Board Building, 2nd Floor, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-6. 4. The General Manager, M/s.Bharathi infotel Ltd., 101, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to recover the award amount as per the award dated 28.12.2005 made in W.C.No.380 of 2004 on the file of the 3rd respondent by initiating proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act For Petitioners ... Mr.P.John Victor For Respondents ... Mr.K.Balakrishnan, AGP. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER On consent, writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The relief sought for herein is for directing the respondents 1 to 3 to recover the award amount as per the award dated 28.12.2005 made in W.C.No.380 of 2004 on the file of the 3rd respondent by initiating appropriate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. The petitioners herein are the wife and children of one Kumar who died on 22.06.2003 during the course of his employment under the 4th respondent. The petitioner filed W.C.No.380 of 2004 claiming compensation for the death of her husband against the 4th respondent/sub contractor. The petition was after due contest allowed on 28.12.2005 thereby directing the 4th respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.4,36,320/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident. The 4th respondent neither preferred an appeal against the award nor complied with the award by depositing the award amount, which compelled the petitioner to make representation to the 3rd respondent for initiating Revenue Recovery proceedings for the recovery of the award amount from the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent has also by way of reply to the representation sent notice to the 4th respondent, but there was no progress in the proceedings and the same compelled the petitioner to approach the first respondent/District Collector in vain, the petitioner has at last come to this court for the relief as stated supra. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 4th respondent for the recovery of the amount. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the 4th respondent has already deposited the amount before the appropriate authority. 5. That being the subsequent development, the petitioner can be permitted to approach the appropriate authority for the withdrawal of the amount deposited by the 4th respondent. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. tsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The District Collector, M.Singaravellar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 2. The Tahsildar, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Labour Welfare Board Building, 2nd Floor, DMS Compound, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-6. 4. The General Manager, M/s.Bharathi infotel Ltd., 101, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 72935 WP.No.1933 of 2009 NSM (CO) kk 1/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/