IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4292 of 2009(J)
1. SHINE KURIEN, AGED 36,S/O. KUNJUMON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.SHIBU, ITTINETHU PADEETTATHIL,
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
3. MOHAMMED SIYAD, DARSALAM HOUSE,
4. BRANCH MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.4292 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P1 is an award passed by the MACT, Kottayam in OP(MV)
No.1434/01, by which, compensation was awarded. But, however,
except Rs.50,000/-, the balance amount was ordered to be kept in
fixed deposit. Going by the petitioner’s averments, subsequently, an
amount of Rs.2 lakhs was also released. Still later, the petitioner
filed Ext.P3 I.A.No.3188/2008 praying for release of the balance
amount in deposit. The reason stated is that he wanted the amount
in deposit in completing the construction of the garage, which was
half way through. The Tribunal, by Ext.P4 order dated 25/08/2008
however, rejected the petition. It is challenging this order, the writ
petition is filed.
2. First of all, there is inordinate delay in filing the writ
petition itself. If as stated, there was any urgency in getting the
money released, one would think that the petitioner would have filed
this writ petition much earlier.
3. Be that as it may, on a reading of Ext.P3 I.A., I am
WP(C) No.4292/2009
-2-
inclined to think that the petitioner had a genuine reason for
making the request for premature release of the amount in deposit.
However, it is seen from Ext.P3 itself that the building permit
expired on 12/01/2009. Therefore, although I am satisfied that the
petitioner’s request is genuine, still having regard to the fact that
the permit is expired long ago, and as there is nothing to indicate
that the same has been renewed, which is necessary for any
construction, I am not inclined to pass any positive direction as
sought for.
4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition clarifying that in
case as on date, the building permit in question has been renewed,
it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the
Tribunal producing the same, along with a copy of this judgment, in
which case, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders enabling the
petitioner to get the amount released.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg