By the Court.—Ashok Kumar Lohia is before this Court for following reliefs;

(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.5.2016 and 26.8.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3, Assessing Officer & Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi.

(b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 3 to afford opportunity of hearing and decide the pending representation dated 19.8.2016.

(c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notification dated 20.11.2009 and 15.9.2010, passed by the respondent No. 2, State of U.P. appointing Assessing Officer and Cess Collector.

(d) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 not to enforce the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 and 26.8.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3, Assessing Officer & Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi, against the petitioner and not to resort any coercive measure.

(e) issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Petitioner claims that he is proprietor of a concern that has constructed a residential building at K. 57/21, Navapura, Daranagar, Varanasi under the caption ‘Neelkanth Apartment’. Petitioner has stated that proceedings for assessment of cess under Rule 7 (5) of Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 was initiated on 31.5.2016 and assessment to the tune of Rs. 2,92,328/- cess was assessed at the rate of 1% over the construction cost. The relevant extract of the said impugned order is quoted below:

^^vr,oa Hkou ,oa vU; lfUuekZ.k deZdkj midj vf/kfu;e] 1996 rr~lEca/kh fu;ekoyh] 1988 ds fu;e&7 ¼5½ ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,di{kh; vk/kkj ij Jh v'kksd dqekj yksfg;k lh 33@2 pUnqvk lV~Vh] Hkkjr ekrk efUnj] okjk.klh }kjk 57@21 Mh0,0ch0 jksM] nkjkuxj] okjk.klh esa ¼dk'kh xkserh la;qDr xzkeh.k cSad ds cxy esa½ djk;s x;s O;kolkf;d vkoklh; uhyd.B vikVZesUV ds fuekZ.k ij mijksDr fuekZ.k ykxr dk 01 izfr'kr :0 2]92]328@& ¼:0 nks yk[k ckucs gtkj rhu lkS vV~BkbZl½ ek= midj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

Jh v'kksd dqekj yksfg;k ds0 57@21 Mh0,0ch0 jksM nkjkuxj] okjk.klh ¼dk'kh xkserh la;qDr xzkeh.k cSad ds cxy esa½ dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 16-6-2016 rd mDr fu/kkZfjr midj dh jkf'k **m0iz0 Hkou ,oa vU; lfUuekZ.k dY;k.k cksMZ** ds i{k esa fMek.M MªkV ds ek/;e ls v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa tek djsa rFkk ;g Hkh Li"V djsa fd fuekZ.k dk;Z lekIr gksus dh frfFk fnlEcj] 2013 ds ,d ekg ds Hkhrj dqy fuekZ.k ykxr dk 1 izfr'kr dh nj ls nj midj dh /kujkf'k tek u djus ds fy, D;ksa u mu ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&9] ds vUrZxr lsl dh /kujkf'k ds cjkcj vFkZn.M ,oa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&8 ds vUrxZr 2 izfr'kr izfrekg dh nj ls C;kt vkjksfir fd;k tk;A**

3. Petitioner, thereafter, represented the matter and same has been rejected. Petitioner is contending before this Court that the entire proceedings, so undertaken, are unjustifiable and, accordingly, requisite relief be accorded to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the entire proceedings, so initiated, are totally without jurisdiction and not at all subscribed under law and, as such, this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer and Cess Collector under exercise of power conferred under Rule 2 (g) of Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 and against the said assessment there is remedy of appeal provided for, as such, no interference be made by this Court and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Parliament in the year 1996 enacted following two Acts, whose preamble are given below under the name of the Act;

(i) Building & other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employ