Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42529 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8503 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Pandey,Lakshman Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 Sri Kesharwani, learned counsel put up his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the prayer to quash the notice dated 07.12.2024 issued by the respondent no. 3/Assistant Labor Commissioner U.P. Region Prayagraj, District Prayagraj by which a direction was given by him to the respondent no. 4 to recover a sum of Rs. Five lacks from the petitioner as per the provisions contained under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. 3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as per sub-section 2 of section 4 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996, before imposing any cess as per section 3 of the Act 1996, the officer or the authority shall give a notice to the concerned person. Section 4 of the aforesaid Act reads as follows:- "4. Furnishing of returns.-(1) Every employer shall furnish such return to such officer or authority, in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed. (2) If any person carrying on the building or other construction work, liable to pay the cess under section 3, fails to furnish any return under sub-section (1), the officer or the authority shall give a notice requiring such person to furnish such return before such date as may be specified in the notice." 4. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Kesharwani, counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy to file an appeal as per section 11 of the Act 1996, in response to the same it is argued by counsel for the petitioner that since a direction has been given by the authorities to recover a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs without providing any notice and opportunity which is complete violation of the principle of natural justice, hence there is no bar to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an alternative remedy. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. From perusal of record it appears that the notices were issued by the respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 4 to recover a sum of Rs. Five Lacs from the petitioner as per Section 4 of Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. It is clear from perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, 1996 that before issuing such notice the person concerned should provided an opportunity of hearing. 7. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear from the perusal of record that before initiation of the recovery proceedings against the petitioner, no notice or opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held that in case the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice the affected party approach this Court directly. Relevant paragraph reads as follows:- "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutions law as they still hold the field." 9. In this view of the matter, since the recovery order was passed without providing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner is complete violation of principles of natural justice, the order impugned dated 07.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 namely Assistant Labor Commissioner U.P. Region Prayagraj, District Prayagraj, is liable to set aside and is hereby set aside. 10 . In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. 11. It is made clear that this order will not restrained the respondents to pass a fresh order in the matter against the petitioner, if so advised. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad