Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010232902025 2025:GAU-AS:14559 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6112/2025 NURUL ISLAM SATTAR S/O- ABDUL SATTAR, R/O- VILL- BURAHAZAR, KONWAR GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- BARBARUAH, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, pin- 786007. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI-01. 2:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN NE REGION BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781021 3:THE RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN NE REGION BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781021. 4:THE BRANCH MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LEPETKATTA BRANCH DIBRUGARH. 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER Page No.# 2/3 HDFC BANK LEPETKATTA BRANCH DIBRUGARH For the petitioner (s) : Mr. R. S. Mishra, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. Smith, Advocate Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M. Smith, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 5 when the matter is called for. 2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is the opinion of this Court that the order can be passed in absence of the respondent No.1. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.3 had issued a notice dated 24.02.2025 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,20,497/- as the contribution which the petitioner is liable to pay. The petitioner herein has not assailed the said notice. But the case of the petitioner is on the ground that he had submitted a representation before the respondent No.3 on 08.09.2025 Page No.# 3/3 explaining the grounds why the petitioner was not in the position to make the payment and further seeking leave to pay the said amount in 10 installments. The representation having not been considered, the petitioner therefore has approached this Court. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that on account of nonpayment, two of the bank accounts of the petitioner have been freezed. 5. Mr. M. Smith, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that the respondents are not adverse to considering the representation subject to the submission of the necessary documents. 6. Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would submit the necessary documents within 10 days. 7. Taking into account the above, it is observed that if the petitioner submits the necessary documents, the respondent No.3 shall duly consider the representation in accordance with law. 8. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant