The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited; it will not interfere with a well-reasoned discretionary order of the MACT regarding the premature release of FDRs if the order aims to protect the long-term financial security of vulnerable claimants.

Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 30.01.2026, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners seeking the premature release of the remaining two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) was dismissed by the learned MACT.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide an earlier award dated 28.03.2025, the learned Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,10,893/- in favor of the petitioners.

3. It is submitted that five FDRs in a nationalized bank of Rs. 1,00,000/- each were created qua petitioner No.1; four FDRs comprising amounts of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- were created qua petitioner Nos.3 and 4; and one FDR was created qua petitioner No.2, alongside a certain amount disbursed directly into their savings bank account.

4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.1 has already withdrawn the initial amount from the savings account, as well as the proceeds from some of the prematurely encashed FDRs. The present grievance arises as the petitioners seek the premature release of the remaining two FDRs, citing an urgent financial requirement for the construction of a house.

5. To substantiate the said prayer, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Padma & Ors. v. R. Venugopal & Ors. reported in AIR Online 2012 SC 530, and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court has permitted the release of amounts invested in long-term deposits in favor of the claimants.

6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel.

7. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the application for premature release, has undertaken a detailed and assiduous evaluation of the factual matrix. The learned Tribunal rightfully took into consideration the extreme vulnerability of the claimants, specifically noting that petitioner No.1 is a widow, the other claimants are minor children, and the father-in-law is an elderly dependent. By refusing to release the final remaining FDRs for house construction, the learned Tribunal has exercised its discretion judiciously to safeguard the long-term financial security and paramount welfare of the minor children and the widow.

8. It is a well-settled position of law that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is highly circumscribed. Interference is warranted only when the impugned order suffers from grave illegality or material perversity. In the present factual matrix, this Court observes no such perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error in the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

9. In view of above, the instant petition stand dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.