THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P. No. 23529 of 1995 Dated: 03.11.2006 Between: Mohd. Moinuddin & another … Petitioners AND District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P. No. 23529 of 1995 ORDER:- The petitioners are the parents of late Razia, who died in an accident on 07.01.1991 while she was in employment of the Officer In- charge, Military Farm, Bowenpally, Secunderabad – the 3rd respondent herein. She was employed for the purpose of cutting grass, load the same in the tractor and unload at Bowenpally Military area with daily wage of Rs.40/-. While the said Razia was travelling in tractor bearing No.CF 29 and trailor No.CF 7(M.F.7) in course of her employment, she fell down from the tractor and was ran over by it. She was declared dead after she was shifted to Air Force Hospital. The petitioners, who are the parents of the said Razia, filed Workmen Compensation case (WC.No.136 of 1992) before the 2nd respondent claiming compensation. The 2nd respondent, after hearing the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent herein, passed a considered order on 24.08.1994 awarding a sum of Rs.90,550/- towards compensation apart from costs and the total amount so awarded came to Rs.91,034/-. The 2nd respondent directed in the award that the 3rd respondent shall deposit the said amount by way of demand draft taken on a nationalized bank in favour of the 2nd respondent within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. As the said direction was not complied with by the 3rd respondent and on the petitioners moving the 2nd respondent, he addressed a letter to the 1st respondent - the District Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad on 30.06.1995 requesting him to initiate necessary recovery proceedings against the 3rd respondent under Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of Rs.1,40,647/- and to send the amount by way of demand draft in favour of the 2nd respondent. As the 1st respondent failed to act on the said request, the petitioners having waited for more than four months filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of issuance of writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to recover the compensation amount awarded by the 3rd respondent. On being permitted, the learned counsel for the petitioners served notices on all the respondents and filed a memo dated 02.02.1996 to that effect. Except the 2nd respondent, respondents 1 and 3 have not made any appearance either in-person or through their respective counsel. On 25.09.2006, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that the 3rd respondent filed a CMA questioning the award dated 24.08.1994 of the 2nd respondent. In view of the said representation, this Court felt it proper to hear the writ petition along with the CMA. Accordingly, the CMA was ordered to be posted before this Court by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. When the matter is posted again, the registry has put up a note, whereunder it is mentioned that the 3rd respondent filed CMA (SR) 64255 of 1995 against the award of the 2nd respondent with a CMP to condone the delay in filing the CMA. The said CMP was allowed by this Court on 11.10.1996 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.1,000/- on or before 11.11.1996 and that if the costs are not deposited within the stipulated time, the petition shall stand dismissed. It is further mentioned in the said note that since the said costs imposed by this Court were not deposited, the CMA stood dismissed. The conduct of respondents 1 and 3 is distressing, to say the least. The 3rd respondent, who suffered an order and unsuccessfully challenged the CMA, did not even bother to enter appearance in the present writ petition and defend his case. Similarly, the 1st respondent, who not only failed to carry out the obligation cast on him under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act has also failed to cause appearance in this writ petition in spite of service of notice. Indubitably, both these officers holding public office are legally bound to carry out their duties and responsibilities which they miserably failed to do. With the dismissal of the CMA against the 3rd respondent as far back the year 1996, the 3rd respondent has absolutely no justification for not depositing the amount as directed in the award of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners are therefore, entitled to the relief sought for in the present writ petition. For the casual and negligent conduct of respondents 1 and 3, which resulted in denial of the benefit of utilizing a substantial part of compensation to the poor parents of the deceased, I am inclined to impose exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) against each of the respondents viz., respondents 1 and 3, which shall be paid to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it is open to the petitioners to seek execution of this order to the extent of costs against them. The 1st respondent shall complete the recovery proceedings under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and deposit the amount so recovered with the 2nd respondent. On such deposit, respondent No.2 shall pay the said amount to the petitioners. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.11.2006 ES