1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4101 OF 2009 Shri Pradip V. Sakhare .... Petitioner. V/s Shri Tukaram M. Patil & Anr. ..... Respondents. Me. Sachin C. Raje i/b Mr. S.S. Pakale h/f Kirankumar Phakade for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Topkar for respondent No.1. Ms Bhakti Barve i/b Ms Arati B. Barve for respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C:- 1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that though by order dated 17/07/2009, this Court was pleased to permit respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount deposited by petitioners in this Court, the Assistant Registrar, Decree Department by order dated 03/11/2009 was pleased to direct that the request for withdrawal of the amount will be considered after the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Kolhapur decides his application. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that this is directly 2 contrary to the directions given by this Court in para 9 of the said order dated 17/07/2009. In para 9 of the said order, this Court has observed as under:- “9. In this view of the matter, in my view, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner for the purpose of deciding the application as to who should pay the penalty and the compensation along with interest. By order dated 21st April, 2009, this Court had directed the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- in this Court. Accordingly, the said amount has been deposited by the Petitioners in this Court on 22.4.2009. The Respondent No.1 was directed to withdraw the said amount unconditionally since the finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2 recorded by the Commissioner has not been challenged by Petitioners herein. It is clarified that after the Commissioner decides as to who is liable to pay the compensation and in the event the Insurance Company is made liable to pay the compensation, the said amount may be adjusted and may be paid to the Petitioners 3 herein.” 2. The observations made by this Court is self explanatory and it needs no further clarification, yet, if the Assistant Registrar had any doubt, it was his duty to have asked this Court instead of rejecting the application which was filed by respondent No.1 for withdrawal of the said amount. 3. Mr. A. D. Malbari, Assistant Registrar, Decree Department, therefore, should give his explanation as to why the order passed by this Court was not complied with by him. Explanation to be given within two weeks. 4. Office is directed to comply with the said order dated 17/07/2009 forthwith. (V.M. KANADE, J.)