IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4292 of 2009(J) ------------------------- OPMV.1434/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHINE KURIEN, AGED 36,S/O. KUNJUMON, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARIAPPALLY P.O., NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.SHIBU, ITTINETHU PADEETTATHIL, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMED SIYAD, DARSALAM HOUSE, MALAMEL BHAGOM, KEERUKODE VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. BRANCH MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, KOLLAD BRANCH, KOLLAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4292 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an award passed by the MACT, Kottayam in OP(MV) No.1434/01, by which, compensation was awarded. But, however, except Rs.50,000/-, the balance amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit. Going by the petitioner's averments, subsequently, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was also released. Still later, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 I.A.No.3188/2008 praying for release of the balance amount in deposit. The reason stated is that he wanted the amount in deposit in completing the construction of the garage, which was half way through. The Tribunal, by Ext.P4 order dated 25/08/2008 however, rejected the petition. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 2. First of all, there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition itself. If as stated, there was any urgency in getting the money released, one would think that the petitioner would have filed this writ petition much earlier. 3. Be that as it may, on a reading of Ext.P3 I.A., I am WP(C) No.4292/2009 -2- inclined to think that the petitioner had a genuine reason for making the request for premature release of the amount in deposit. However, it is seen from Ext.P3 itself that the building permit expired on 12/01/2009. Therefore, although I am satisfied that the petitioner's request is genuine, still having regard to the fact that the permit is expired long ago, and as there is nothing to indicate that the same has been renewed, which is necessary for any construction, I am not inclined to pass any positive direction as sought for. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition clarifying that in case as on date, the building permit in question has been renewed, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the Tribunal producing the same, along with a copy of this judgment, in which case, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders enabling the petitioner to get the amount released. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg