Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010275792024 2025:GAU-AS:81 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6922/2024 M/S SAILAJA CONSTRUCTION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO. C1, BANESWAR ENCLAVE, RUPKONWAR PATH, SACHAL, PO KHANAPARA, PS DISPUR GUWAHATI 781022 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI MANASH PRATIM TALUKDAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SON OF RATNA KANTA TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. C1, BANESWAR ENCLAVE, RUPKONWAR PATH, SACHAL, PO KHANAPARA, PS DISPUR GUWAHATI 781022 VERSUS THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 2 ORS REGIONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI , NORTHEAST REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ESIC, R.O GUWAHATI M .R.D ROAD, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI ASSAM 781021 2:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ESIC R.O GUWAHATI M .R.D ROAD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI ASSAM 781021 3:THE RECOVERY OFFICER ESIC R.O GUWAHATI M .R.D ROAD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI ASSAM 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D J KAPIL, MR G RAHUL Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ESIC, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 06.01.2025 Heard Mr. D.J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that an order dated 30.09.2022 under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner Firm, confirming the demand of contribution for the period from September, 2017 to October, 2020, amounting to Rs.3,34,719/-. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the demand notice dated 14.01.2021, notices of personal hearing dated 22.04.2021 and 25.02.2021 were forwarded to an address which had been earlier rented by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner never received the above notices prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 30.09.2022. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned order dated 30.09.2022, recovery certificate dated 11.01.2023 came to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently. The petitioner filed a representation against the same on 12.12.2023, praying that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. However, without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 12.12.2023, the recovery process was initiated in an illegal and arbitrary manner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the entire amount that was payable by the petitioner, vide the Page No.# 3/4 impugned order dated 30.09.2022, has been recovered by the respondents on 26.12.2024. He submits that an opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner with regard to the impugned order dated 30.09.2022. 4. Mr. M. Smith, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the entire amount recoverable from the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 has been recovered, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present case. He however submits that in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandan Sahu Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporation and 2 Ors., WP(C) 1687/2024, which was disposed of on 27.03.2024, the petitioner has the liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 under Section 45-AA or Section 75 of the Act. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. As can be seen from the averments made in the writ petition, the amount to be recovered by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 has been recovered by the respondent authorities. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy available to him, by either filing an appeal under Section 45-AA or Section 75 of the Act, if he is still aggrieved with the impugned order. In the event the petitioner files an appeal under Section 45-AA or Section 75 of the Act, any delay that may have arisen in approaching the appellate authority should be considered sympathetically, keeping in view the fact that the writ petition had been filed on 19.12.2024, i.e., before the full recovery had been made by the authorities in terms of the impugned order Page No.# 4/4 dated 30.09.2022 on 26.12.2024. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant