IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 35468 of 2007(V) -------------------------- OPMV.1982/1992 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- M.D.GEORGE, S/O.DAVID, MADAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, OORAKADE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. 5. LAKSHMANAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, AADIVASI COLONY, NADUPPATHI P.O., WALAYAR DAM, PALAKKAD. 6. VELLACHI, W/O.LAKSHMANAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, AADIVASI COLONY, NADUPPATHI, P.O.WALAYAR DAM, PALAKKAD. 7. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA BRANCH, P.B.NO.49, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 8. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALABAR CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, WALAYAR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) - R8 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN - R8 SRI.A.R.GANGADAS - R5-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35468/2007 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.D6-11868/06 DTD. 4/12/06 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF RR ACT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DTD. 27/10/97 IN VARIOUS CLAIMS, VIZ. O.P.(MV) NOS. 1982/92, 1983/92, 1984/92, 2030/92, 2031/92, 2032/92, 2033/92 BEFORE MACT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 23/3/07 IN WP(C) 2992/07 BEFORE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/08/07 IN I.A.NO.3142/2007 IN O.P.M.V.1983/92 MACT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 25/01/07 IN WP(C) NO. 2992/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE NO.344/07 DTD.24/2;07 ISSUED BY FEDERAL BANK, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI BRANCH IN FAVOUR OF DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (R.R.) KUNNATHUNADU. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 12/12/07 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU TOWARDS DEPOSIT OF RS.96,000/- BY THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 30/11/07 IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURES 1 & 2: COPIES OF THE JOINT STATEMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMANTS IN O.P.(MV) 1983/1992 AND O.P.(MV) 2031/1992 BEFORE MACT, PALAKKAD. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 35468 OF 2007 - V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that following the common award passed by the MACT, Palakkad, recovery proceedings were initiated and that was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No. 2992 of 2007. In that writ petition, an order was passed by this Court on 15.02.2007, granting stay on condition that the petitioner furnished bank guarantee for Rs.1 lakh. It is stated that the bank guarantee was furnished and thereafter the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies that are available. It is stated that following Ext.P3 judgment the petitioner applied to the MACT itself for withdrawing the revenue recovery action and on its rejection, this writ petition was filed challenging the same. In this writ petition also, stay was granted on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.96,000/- and that also has been complied with, it is stated. 2. According to the petitioner, subsequent to all these, the dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the claimants, W.P.(C) No. 35468 OF 2007 - 2 - who are respondents 5 and 6 on the other, had been settled and the substantial payment has been made towards the liability under the award. In view of this, all that the Petitioner now seeks is a direction that the bank guarantee that was furnished by the petitioner by virtue of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2992/07 may be directed to be returned to him. 3. Now that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 has been settled, and once the liability is discharged there may not be any problem in the Tribunal returning the bank guarantee that was furnished by the petitioner. Therefore, it is directed that on the petitioner producing satisfactory proof before the Tribunal to the effect that the liability arising under the award in question is discharged, the Tribunal shall take necessary action for returning the bank guarantee to the petitioner. With these directions writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-