Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Heard Ms. Sanchita Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P. (C) No.7008 of 2005, W.P. (C) No.7278 of 2004, W.P. (C) No.3208 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No.2105 of 2005 and Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.2556 of 2005, W.P. (C) No.4619 of 2004 and W.P. (C) No.3336 of 2001. Also heard Mr. A.R. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P. (C) No.2105 of 2005. The decision rendered in this writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No.7008 of 2005 shall also govern disposal of other connected writ petitions being W.P. (C) No.7278 of 2004, W.P. (C) No.2556 of 2005, W.P. (C) No.3208 of 2005, W.P. (C) No.4619 of 2004, W.P. (C) No.3181 of 2000, W.P. (C) No.3336 of 2001 and W.P. (C) No.2105 of 2005 because the issues involved in all these writ petitions are common.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an award dated 29.3.2005 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 177 of 2002 by the Member, M.A.C.T., Bongaigaon.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief infra.

4. Petitioner, an insurer of an offending vehicle, suffered award under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. M.A.C. Case No. 177 of 2002 whereby the petitioner was made to pay along with insured a sum of Rs. 4,39,700 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the death of the claimant's son Dibendu Majumdar, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.5.2002. It is against this award the petitioner (insurer) felt aggrieved and instead of filing an appeal under section 173 of the Act, filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning its legality and correctness. It is this writ petition which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court by order dated 3.3.2006 holding that it is not maintainable. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed a special leave to appeal being Civil Appeal No. 7632 of 2012 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10128 of 2006] to the Supreme Court of India.

5. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 9.10.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by this court and remanded the case for deciding the matter in terms of the direction given in the said order. This is how these writ petitions are listed today for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the direction given by the Supreme Court in its order.

6. The order passed by the Supreme Court reads as under:

"(1) Delay condoned.

(2) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

C.A. Nos. arising out of S.L.P. Nos. 10128, 10130, 10132, 10133, 10315, 16460, 10390 and 10217 of 2006.

(1) These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 7008 of 2005, 7278 of 2004, 2556 of 2005, 3208 of 2005, 4619 of 2004, 3181 of 2000, 3336 of 2001 and 2105 of 2005 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeals.

(2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

(3) The issues raised in these appeals, in our view, are no more res integra, in view of the decision of this court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta and Others, AIR 2012 SC 86.

(4) Following the observations made in the aforesaid decision, these appeals are disposed of. We set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matters to the High Court.

(5) We request the High Court to restore the appeals to its file and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after issuing appropriate notice to both the parties in each case.

Ordered accordingly."

7. Mere perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court would make it clear that the Supreme Court disposed of all the appeals in the light of its earlier decision rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta and Others