JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer made in this writ petition is for quashing the order dated 11.08.2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh whereby he has directed the owner/petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 1,96,541/-to the Insurer without arriving at any findings in absence of any evidence or without any proceedings in accordance with Law or without arriving at any finding against the owner to fix his liability. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention that the order passed by this Court in M. A. No. 231 of 2002 dated 04.07.2003, which is read as under:- “The appellant, Insurance Company has already deposited the amount before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh which is the condition for entertaining the appeal. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to settle the claim with the condition that the awarded amount be paid subject to right of the appellant to recover from the owner of the vehicle. It goes without saying that the appellant shall have the right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle permissible in law.” 4. It is submitted on the part of the petitioner that from the perusal of the impugned order it appears that this Court had only given opportunity to the Insurance Company to recover the amount in question to be paid to the workmen from the owner if permissible in law. It is submitted that without any application on the part of the Insurance Company or without initiating any proceeding, the impugned order dated 11.08.2004 has been passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh, which is contained at Annexure-7. The Insurance Company was required to establish liability of the owner regarding the validity of the licence of the Driver, thereafter, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner was required to pass an order whether the petitioner owner has to pay the sum in question of Rs. 1,96,541/-to the Insurance Company. 5. Mr. P. C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is justified in law in view of the earlier order passed by this court and the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has rightly passed the order after hearing the parties and after carefully going through the record. 6. 1,96,541/-to the Insurance Company. 5. Mr. P. C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is justified in law in view of the earlier order passed by this court and the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has rightly passed the order after hearing the parties and after carefully going through the record. 6. It appears that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner passed the impugned order without any evidence as well as without recording any findings regarding the validity of the licence of the driver in question and straightway recorded a cryptic order without any reason proceeded to hold the petitioner-owner liable to pay the amount to the Insurance Company. The workmen compensation commissioner was required to proceed after allowing the concerned parties including the Insurance Company to adduce the evidence in support of their contention that it was liability of the owner to pay the amount in question to the Insurance Company and only after they are able to establish that driver did not have the valid licence of the said vehicle. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 11.08.2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh, contained at Annexure-7 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh to decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity to the parties expeditiously and preferably within a period of ten months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.