RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-National Insurance Company and learned counsel for the Income Tax Department in both the cases. No one appears for the private respondents despite valid service of notices upon them.

2. In both the writ applications, the prayer is to quash the order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the District Judge, Gopalganj in M.V. Case No.01 of 2005 and the order dated 2.6.2012 passed by the same learned Judge in MACT Case No.08/2007, by which applying the provision of Section 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an amount of Rs.24,175 and Rs.17,922/- respectively in the two cases have been directed to be disbursed to the private respondents which had been deducted as Income Tax at source by the petitioner-company while paying the amount under the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. The facts of the cases lie within a narrow compass so far as the determination of the issue involved is concerned and are precisely the same.

4. The facts of the first case alone may be noted. The Motor Vehicles Case No.1/2005 was filed before the District Judge under the provisions of Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act ag