H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner Insurance Company.

2. The challenge made in this application filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is an award dated 6.11.1999 passed by the leaned Member, MACT, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 71/1997.

3. Against the aforesaid impugned award, the petitioner earlier filed a civil revision petition being CRP No. 75/2000 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the said revision petition was dismissed inter alia holding not to be maintainable vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2005, this present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the same award, seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

4. The case of the petitioner, inter alia, is that the claimant respondent himself filed the claim case being MACT Case No. 71/97 before the MACT, Kamrup at Guwahati claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him while the bus No. AS 01/0658, in which he was the handyman, met with the accident on 8.9.1996. During the course of the trial, the learned Tribunal examined 4 witnesses including the claimant himself, whereas the Insurance Company/writ petitioner examined none. On consideration of the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 6.11.1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 5 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 18.2.1997 till realization as compensation.

5. The basic case highlighted by the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal acted illegally and arbitrarily in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh which is an exorbitant one that too without examining the doctor as a witness although the learned Tribunal took into consideration the necessary certificate issued by the doctor and as such it should be interfered with in exercise of the extra ordinary power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that dismissal of the earlier revision petition would not be a bar for exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court exercising power of judicial review.

6. At the outset, a question arose regarding the maintainability of this writ petition filed under Article226/227 of the Constitution of India. Referring to two single Bench decisions of this Court as reported in 2005 (1) GLT 569 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Gauri Roy (Deb) and Ors. and (2005) 1 GLT 1 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rejina Begum and Ors. the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the power of judicial review under Article 226 is very much there and the same being a basic structure of the Constitution, cannot be taken away in spite existence of statutory right of appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in such a situation, this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The rider of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. reported in [2003] 1 SCR 567 will come into play, in view of the decision of this Court referred to above.

7. In Sadhana Lodh (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the maintainability of a writ petition against an award of MACT on the face of existence of statutory right of appeal at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 held as follows:

6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the ground of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act see National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nicolletta Rohtagi. This being the legal position the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been pro