■ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO: r>F 2024 :: AMARAV NIMMAGADDA Between: Kamisetty Srinivas, S/o. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, 53 R/o. D.No.3-42/1 Main Road, Ambajipet, Dr. BRA Konasema District years, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of india, Rep. by its Principai Secretary. Ministry of Labour and Empioyinent, Government of india, Employees State Corporation, New Delhi. . Insurance 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Employees State Insurance Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District 3. Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation Corporation, Panchadeep Bhawan , Esic Road, Gunadaia Vijayawada Rep by its Asst. Director/Authorised Officer 4. The Recovery officer.. Employees State Insurance Panchadeep Bhawan ,Esic Road, Gunadaia Vijayawada Corporation, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ, order or direction may more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the order dt 7-10-2024 and demand notices dt 2-09-2024, 13- 08-2024 and 22-03-2024 by the respondents 4 and 3 directing the petitioner to pay the Employees Contribution and interest for the period from Mar 2019 on wards as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently directing the respondentsto consider the request of the petitioner afresh. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of operation of the orders dt 7-10- 2024 & demand notices dt 2-09-2024, 13-08-2024 & 22-03-2024 by the respondents 4 & 3 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. V. S. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI Y. V. ANIL KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI V.CH. NAIDU, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010605212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 31565/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Kamisetty Srinivas AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) The Court made the following: ORDER:- This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “...To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 07.10.2024 & demand notices dated 02.09.2024, 13.08.2024 & 22.03.2024 by the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 directing the petitioner to pay the Employees Contribution and interest for the period from March 2019 onwards as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner afresh and pass orders and till such time, drop the further proceedings and pass such other order or orders... 1. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows; The petitioner herein is in the petty works tender Further, the petitioner got SIRI Constructions and year 2019. in the activity of constructions process of the State or Public Sector and participating undertakings, registered the proprietary concern in the name of participated in road works allotted by the ONGC in the 3. While so, the Respondent Nos. dated 22.03.2024, 13.08.2024 vide order dated 07.10.2024, Contributions and interest thereon for March, 2019 onwards. 3 and 4 issued the demand & 02.09.2024 and the notices impugned proceedings directing the petitioner to late payments if any, for the pay the Employees period from 4. Pursuant to the notice i the petitioner submitted issued by the Respondents dated 22.03.2024, an explanation to Respondent No.3 on 04.04.2024 explaining that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount notice dated 22.03.2024. Without as indicated vide considering the explanation of the petitioner, proceeding further and issued notices dated the Respondents are 13.08.2024 impugned order dated 07.10.2024 freezing and 02.09.2024 and finally the i the Bank Account of the petitioner Act, 1948 is arbitrary and contrary to law under Section 45G(3)(IX) and (X) of the ESI is arbitrary and contrary to the Law. 5. Under the iimpugned proceedings, the Respondents demanded an amount to be payable by the petitioner is of Rs. 16,13,582/-. Till such payment, the amount lying with the petitioner’s subject Bank Account was freezed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having invited the objections / explanation from the petitioner dated 04.04.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 22.03.2024, the Respondents without considering the same and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for such determination of huge amount of Rs.16,13,582/-, issuing the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2024 is contrary to the principles of natural justice and principle of fair and reasonableness opportunity while issuing proceedings part of the Public Authorities. Hence the writ petition. 6. on 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that the liability of the petitioner was intimated from time and again not only through the notice dated 22.03.2024, for which the petitioner submitted explanation. Thereafter, after considering his explanation, the latter notices issued to the petitioner by the Respondents. But, the petitioner did not respond to the latter notices and not availed the alternative remedy as provided under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948. were Learned counsel further submits that if there is any grievance of the 8. petitioner regarding claim of the Respondents and if he is aggrieved by then, before the ESI Court by way of statutory the petitioner can challenge the same Appeal as contemplated under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948. Without availing the same, challenging the impugned proceedings before this Court under extraordinary jurisdiction is contrary to the settled proposition of law, Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Sri V.C.H. Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 No.1 and to 4 and perused the material placed on record. 10. Since the petitioner is claiming about non observance of the principle of fair and reasonableness and without considering his explanation straight way freezing the Bank account of the petitioner by the Respondents vide proceedings dated 07.10.2024 is nothing but non observance of principles of natural justice. He further submits that it is settled proposition of law that if the Respondents are not adhered to the principle of fair and reasonableness while exercising their power, even though there is a statutory alternative remedy, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 11. In view of the settled proposition of law that this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to deposit 1/4‘^ of the demanded amount to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, within a period of one week. After receipt of such deposit from petitioner, the Respondents are directed to defreeze the Bank Account petitioner with immediate effect. the of the 5 12. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the validity and authenticity of the impugned order by way of an alternative remedy as contemplated under Section 75 of the Act, 1948. 13. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the parties. There shall be order as to costs. no Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4 / //TRUE COPY// 6n^tN OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Union of India, Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi. . 2. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Employees State Insurance Corporation, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District 3. The Asst. Director/Authorised Officer, Regional office. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchadeep Bhawan , Esic Road, Gunadala Vijayawada. 4. The Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchadeep Bhawan , Esic Road, Gunadala Vijayawada 5. One CC to Sri T. V. S. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Y. V. Anil Kumar (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri V. CH. Naidu, Standing Counsel[OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb ' ^ vi -• •* y- o HIGH COURT ,** cc r' / ^ C , a1jV C’-/ ;•■ ; 1 u \ '»■ •• r* \ DATED:03/01/2025 c- ORDER •T^ ANDAy^!^ WP.No.31565of 2024 10 JAN 2525 . Current Section ^ / ^gaPATCW^S-'* DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS