APHC010605212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 31565/2024 Between:

Kamisetty Srinivas, ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

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:-

1. 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...”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner herein is in the activity of constructions and participating in the petty works tender process of the State or Public Sector undertakings. Further, the petitioner got registered the proprietary concern in the name of SIRI Constructions and participated in road works allotted by the ONGC in the year 2019.

3. While so, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 issued the demand notices dated 22.03.2024, 13.08.2024 & 02.09.2024 and the impugned proceedings vide order dated 07.10.2024, directing the petitioner to pay the Employees Contributions and interest thereon for late payments if any, for the period from March, 2019 onwards.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Respondents dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner submitted an explanation to Respondent No.3 on 04.04.2024 explaining that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as indicated vide notice dated 22.03.2024. Without considering the explanation of the petitioner, the Respondents are proceeding further and issued notices dated 13.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 and finally the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 freezing the Bank Account of the petitioner under Section 45G(3)(IX) and (X) of the ESI Act, 1948 is arbitrary and contrary to law is arbitrary and contrary to the Law.

5. Under the impugned 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.

6. 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 on part of the Public Authorities. Hence the writ petition.

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 were 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.

8. Learned counsel further submits that if there is any grievance of the petitioner regarding claim of the Respondents and if he is aggrieved by then, the petitioner can challenge the same before the ESI Court by way of statutory Appeal as contemplate