HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH HON’BLE SHRI H L DATTU C J Writ Petition No. 509 of 1991 Petitioners: Rameshwar Prasad Dixit, S/o (Non-applicant) Ramdayal R/o Tehgham Chowk at . DlXIt Engineering Works Raipur MP Versus Respondents: Tiiakchand S/o Harichandra Choudhary Rio Lodhipara, Simian Road, Raipur, MP. Present : Shn H B Agrawai Sr Advocate With Shn J K Gupia counsel for the petitioner ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4‘“ May, 2007) The petitioner in this writ petition just calls in question the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen‘s Compensation , Raipur dated 7.12.1990 2‘ The respondent in this writ petition was the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen‘s Compensation in Case No. 9/1982. It appears. that the Commissioner for Workmen‘s Compensation had passed an ex parte award. 3. After coming to know about the ex parte award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, the petitioner in this writ petition had filed an application for re-caliing the ex parts award. The said appiication was rejected by the Commissioner _for Workmen’s Compensation by his order dated 7.12.1990 and it is that orderwhich is the subject matter of the writ petition. M 4. In my View, the petitioner without questioning the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation couid not have merely questioned the order dated 7.12.1990 wherein the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has rejected the petitioner’s application for recalling the earlier ex parte order passed. petitioner is expected not only to question the order passed rejecting his application for recalling the ex parte award and also the award itself. Even otherwise also, nearly after seventeen years from the date of passing the award, it may not be proper to unsettle the settled dispute. 5. In view of above, in my opinion, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Ordered accordingly. in matters of this nature, cJ—