APHC010422952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23261/2026 Between: 1. SRI VIVEKANANDA LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER/CHAIRMAN, SMT. G. REEMALATHA D/O GURUMURTHY, AGED 30 YEARS D.NO.16/665, MASAPET, KADAPA - 516001 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI -1 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, SUB STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT, OF INDIA, D.NO.6 NAGAR K.T.ROAD, TIRUPATI Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the 2ND respondent herein in not consider the representation dt. 24 requesting to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before finalization of the default amount by virtue of letter NO.79 dt. 10-09-2025 for Rs.6,30,448/ letter vide ref.No.79790485420030999/CP/748829 dt.15 W.P.No.23261 of 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23261/2026 VIVEKANANDA LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER/CHAIRMAN, SMT. G. REEMALATHA D/O GURUMURTHY, AGED 30 YEARS D.NO.16/665, MASAPET, KADAPA ...PETITIONER AND UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR EMPLOYMENT, SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW RECOVERY OFFICER, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT, OF INDIA, D.NO.6-1-77/A,VARADARAJA NAGAR K.T.ROAD, TIRUPATI ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other irection, order or orders declaring the action of the 2ND respondent herein in not consider the representation dt. 24- requesting to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before finalization of the default amount by virtue of letter NO.79790485420030999/9920252200 2025 for Rs.6,30,448/- contribution from 2017 to 2020 and another letter vide ref.No.79790485420030999/CP/748829 dt.15-06- RC,J W.P.No.23261 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI VIVEKANANDA LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER/CHAIRMAN, SMT. G. REEMALATHA D/O GURUMURTHY, AGED 30 YEARS D.NO.16/665, MASAPET, KADAPA ...PETITIONER UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR EMPLOYMENT, SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND 77/A,VARADARAJA NDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other irection, order or orders declaring the action of the 2ND 07-2026 requesting to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before finalization of 790485420030999/9920252200 contribution from 2017 to 2020 and another -2026 for RC,J W.P.No.23261 of 2026 2 Rs.12,11,539/- towards contribution from 2017 to 2026 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected the petitioner's rights guaranteed under article 14 and 9(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dt.24-07-2026 and to reconsider the default amount under the contribution from 2017 to 2026 by giving an opportunity to personal hearing before finalization of the default amount and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation dt.24-07-2026 to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before finalization of the default amount by virtue of letter NO.79790485420030999/9920252200 dt. 10-09-2025 for Rs.6,30,448/- contribution from 2017 to 2020 and another letter vide ref.No.79790485420030999/ CP/ 748829 dt. 15-06-2026 for Rs. 12,11,539/- towards contribution from 2017 to 2026 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. U.R.P. SRINIVAS RC,J W.P.No.23261 of 2026 3 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent no.2 in not considering the representation dated 24.07.2026 submitted by the petitioner to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before finalization of the default amount by virtue of letter No.79790485420030999/9920252200, dated 10.09.2025 for Rs.6,30,448/- contribution from 2017 to 2020 for Rs.12,11,539/- and another letter vide Ref.No.79790485420030999/ CP/748829 dated 15.06.2026 for Rs.12,11,539/- towards contribution from 2017 to 2026 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. Heard Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri URP Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would submit that despite lapse of considerable time, the respondent authorities did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand U.R.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, submitted that the petitioner has submitted representation to the 2nd respondent- Recovery officer, who has no power or authority to consider the request made by the petitioner. 5. It is fairly settled that a court cannot direct an authority to consider a representation if that authority completely lacks the legal power or jurisdiction to grant or reject the request and before a court directs an authority to RC,J W.P.No.23261 of 2026 4 dispose of a representation, it must first satisfy itself that the official has the legal competence to decide the matter. 6. Since respondent no.2 has no legal competence to decide the matter contained in the representation according to the respondents, a direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to make representation to appropriate authority, if he is advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 3rd September,2026. RR