Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/371720/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3717 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8423 of 2008
=========================================================
BHARATSINH
ARJUNSINH SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SURESHBHAI
CHUNILAL PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AJAY L PANDAV for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 29/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
only point to be considered in the present petitions is whether the
discretion exercised by the Tribunal for directing the investment of
the amount which has been awarded by way of interim compensation
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter ‘the Act’),
deserve to be interfered with.
The
short facts of the case appears to be that the claim petitions were
filed for compensation before the respective Tribunals. In the said
claim petitions, applications under Section 140 of the Act were
filed for payment of the interim compensation. It appears that the
Tribunal had considered the application and directed for payment of
the interim compensation. However, the Tribunal further directed
that out of the amount of interim compensation, 70% of the amount be
invested with the Nationalised Bank and the remaining amount is
ordered to be disbursed. The aforesaid happened in the case of
Special Civil Application No.3717/08. Whereas, in Special Civil
Application No.8423/08, the Tribunal by separate subsequent order,
directed for investment of 70% of the amount and 30% of the amount
was permitted to be withdrawn. It appears that the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No. 8423/08 thereafter applied for
withdrawal of the amount from the investment made, which has not
been granted. It is under these circumstance, the petitioners have
approached to this Court by preferring the present petition
challenging the order of the Tribunal for direction for the
investment.
Heard
Mr.Pandav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The
concerned respondents are served, but nobody has appeared on their
behalf.
It
was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the guidelines for
the investment would apply only in cases of final award of the
Tribunal and it may not apply in the case of interim compensation.
It was also submitted that if the interim compensation is not
permitted to be withdrawn, the very purpose of making the provisions
under Section 140 of the Act would be frustrated and therefore, the
Tribunal ought to have permitted withdrawal of the full amount. It
is therefore submitted that this Court may set aside the order
passed by the Tribunal and may permit withdrawal of the higher
amount.
As
such, the petitions are under Article 227 of the Constitution
arising from the order of the Tribunal. It appears that the
Tribunal has exercised the discretion and has permitted withdrawal
of 30% of the amount and 70% of the amount is ordered to be invested
in the Fixed Deposit Receipt. Such an order for investment can be
said as by exercise of the discretion by the Tribunal. It cannot be
said that the discretion exercised is in a perverse manner, which
may call for interference by this Court in a petition under Article
227 of the Constitution.
In
view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal does not deserve
to be interfered with. However, if the petitioners are so desirous,
the petitioners shall be at the liberty to move the Tribunal for
early disposal of the claim petitions and if such an application is
made, the Tribunal shall make an attempt to dispose of the claim
petitions as early as possible, preferably within a period of six
months from the receipt of the order of this Court.
Subject
to the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top