1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred, with the following prayers:
"(a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the respondent authority has failed to discharge his duties to recover the amount from the management and direct the respondent to recover the due amount payable to the petitioner from the management as per the order and certificate and further direct to pay the cost and compensation to the workman and recover the same from the personal pay of erring officers.
(b) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent to recover the due amount from the management, with interest and report compliance of certificate to this Hon'ble Court forthwith."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with an establishment known as Kadakia Alkalies & Chemicals, Hansot, Ankleshwar. He met with an accident while working as Helper on 03.01.1997. Due to the same, the petitioner lost his eye-sight, but was not paid compensation by the management. He, therefore, approached the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by filing Application No.5 of 2005, claiming compensation with interest. Vide order dated 09.10.2007, the Commissioner directed the employer to pay Rs.1,40,823/- with 12% interest and 50% penalty, within a period of 30 days. According to the petitioner, the management has not paid the amount, therefore, he was constrained to file an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The application was allowed vide order dated 07.07.2008, by the Commissioner, and a Recovery Certificate was issued to recover the amount from the employer, as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Development Officer (respondent No.1) did not take any concrete steps with regard to the recovery, in spite of several reminders by the Union. Aggrieved by the above action of the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
3. The District Development Officer (respondent No.1) has filed an affidavit-in-reply enumerating the steps taken by him to recover the amount.
4. Today, when the petition is heard, Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for respondent No.1, states, on the basis of written instructions contained in letter dated 25.06.2012, addressed to her by the District Development Officer, Bharuch (respondent No.1), that a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,60,532/- has been handed over to the petitioner towards the amount due to him, pursuant to the Recovery Certificate. A copy of the communication dated 25.06.2012, as well as the xerox copy of the cheque for an amount of Rs.1,60,532/- has been tendered by the learned advocate for respondent No.1, and is taken on record.
5. Ms.Reena M. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr.P.H. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, has confirmed that the petitioner has received the cheque for an amount of Rs.1,60,532/- and states that, as the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed, the petition may be disposed of.
6. Upon the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and as the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed, the petition stands disposed of, without any further orders. Notice is discharged.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top