High Court Kerala High Court

Ramakrishnan vs The Managing Director on 11 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ramakrishnan vs The Managing Director on 11 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4892 of 2008(G)


1. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKU, THOTTATHIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/02/2008

 O R D E R
                                ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                 ------------------------------------

                              W.P.(C) 4892  of  2008

                -------------------------------------

                            Dated: February 11, 2008



                                      JUDGMENT

Ext.P1 is an award passed by the MACT, Attingal. It is stated

that thereafter pursuant to the judgment of this court in WP(C)

10930/07, the compensation awarded was deposited by the

respondent. Subsequently the petitioner made applications for

releasing the amount deposited as ordered in that award. These

applications were considered and Exts.P2 and P3 orders have been

passed declining to release any amount.

2. On going through these orders I am not satisfied that the

petitioner has made out a case for interference. It is seen disclosed

that despite the order from the Tribunal, the petitioner could not

produce any document substantiating his request. If that be so,

the Tribunal cannot be faulted for not releasing the amount. Be that

as it may, since the Tribunal has decided the issue based on the

materials available, I feel that the petitioner should be permitted to

apply afresh if he has sufficient materials to justify the same.

3. Accordingly I direct that if the petitioner is interested in

WP(C) 4892/08

Page numbers

withdrawing any amount, he will be at liberty to make a fresh

application producing supporting documents, in which case the

Tribunal shall consider such application untrammelled by the view it

has taken in Exts.P2 and P3.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-