1 2025:CGHC:1622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 23 of 2025 Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Late Pardesi Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Sudama Nagar, Shivshankar Chowk , Tikarapara Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chetan Gayakwad S/o Mannu Gayakwad Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chhatawna, Mandir Hasaud, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Narayan Prajapati S/o Late Dilip Prajapati Aged About 35 Years R/o Kumharpara Subhash Nagar Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Old Raipur Naka, Raipur Road, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 10/01/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner moved an application for release of fixed deposit amount before the learned Tribunal which was deposited by the Insurance Company pursuant to order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court whereby Insurance Company was directed to deposit 60% of the award amount passed by the tribunal dated 10.11.2023. He further submits that petitioner moved 2 an application for release of FD amount to construct his house. He contends that learned Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that on earlier occasion, petitioner received Rs. 6,65,937/- and he failed to submit any detail before the tribunal. He further contends that petitioner may be permitted to move fresh application describing details of expenditure of that amount. 2) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 3) Evidently, petitioner failed to submit details of the amount which was earlier released on his application and therefore, application dated 26.11.2024 was rejected. As petitioner wants to move a fresh application describing the details of the expenditure of Rs. 6,65,937/-, order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the tribunal is quashed. Petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh application before the tribunal. 4) Accordingly, instant writ petition stands allowed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the tribunal will be at liberty to decide the application, if so moved by petitioner on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya