JUDGMENT V. K. Shukla, J.—In the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the validity of the order dated 3.12.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal refusing to recall the order dated 29.3.2009. 2. Brief background of the case is that M.A.C.P. No. 679 of 2007, Smt. Anjum Khan and others v. Sunil Kumar and others, claiming sum of Rs. 10 lacs with interest on account of death of Sri Parvez Khan had been filed. In the said claim petition insurance company entered appearance and filed its written statement. Petitioner's company moved an application dated 17.3.2009 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Said application in question was rejected on 29.3.2009 by giving cogent reason that mere non-production of original copy of the D.L. of driver in evidence cannot be a ground to reach to the conclusion that he is in collusion with the claimant. It was also mentioned that cross-examination has duly been done by claimant as witness and owner is contesting the case effectively. Subsequent to the same petitioner's company moved another application dated 26.3.2009 mentioning therein that driver of the vehicle is necessary who had not been produced by opposite party No. 1 and therefore opposite party No. 1 be directed to produce the driver in evidence in case he does not produce him the petitioner's company be permitted to summon him on their own expenses. Said application has been rejected. Again thereafter another application was moved on 19.11.2009 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and said application has also been rejected on 3.12.2009. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri Vivek Birla, advocate contended with vehemence that right under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be brushed aside on flimsy grounds and the order which has been passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are unjustifiable order on the fact of it, and such order is liable to be quashed. 4. Facts of the present case are speaking for itself that first application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act moved by insurance company has been rejected by giving cogent reasons on 29.3.2009. 4. Facts of the present case are speaking for itself that first application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act moved by insurance company has been rejected by giving cogent reasons on 29.3.2009. Said application in question was rejected holding therein the situation which was being sought to be pointed by no stretch of imagination can be considered that owner of the vehicle is in collusion with the claimant and it was also reflected from the circumstances that claimant's witness has also been duly cross-examined. Once said application was rejected then another application has been moved on 26.3.2009 by mentioning therein that driver of the vehicle is necessary as such he should be produced by opposite party No. 1 and therefore opposite party No. 1 be directed to produce the driver in evidence in case he does not produce him the petitioner's company be permitted to summon him on their own expenses. Said application has also been rightly rejected by giving reasons that no specific direction can be issued to the other party to produce a particular witness and in case any one intends to produce any person as his own witness he can move appropriate application. Thereafter, another application has been moved on 19.11.2009 under Section 170 of the M.V. Act. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has considered the said application and has rightly rejected said application, inasmuch as grounds which were there in the said application qua collusion in between owner of the vehicle and claimant are totally vague and evasive grounds. In this background once collusion was not at substantiated, said exercise cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Anokhey Lal, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2009, decided on 4.3.2009. In the present case, pre-requisite term and condition for according permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act was not at all fulfilled as such there is no infirmity in the order and principle laid down in the facts of the case has been adhered to. 6. Consequently, present writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed.