A procedure must afford a person a reasonable opportunity to challenge orders affecting their rights, as established under Article 226.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been preferred to quash the order passed by the second respondent in No.CBE/RECY/CP-3/56/111939/1301, dated 10.01.2022 and to direct the 3^rd respondent to lift the freezing of the Bank Account of the petitioner maintained in the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Account of the petitioner maintained in the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, bearing Savings Bank Account No.0188351000000412, T.25, PB No.2, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore –

641 010.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was running K.G.Public Matric Hr. Sec. School, Pachapalayam, Perur, Coimbatore, he was the correspondent of the school. Thereafter, due to the administrative reason, the school was closed based on the proposal sent by the petitioner to the first respondent on 29.10.2020, the first respondent through proceedings No.O.Mu.No.1111/Aa1/2021, dated 10/2021. Thereafter, the ESI Inspector of the second respondent issued a notice in Ref.No.ESI No.56-00-111939-000-1301/INS IV/SRO, dated 27.09.2019 by directing to make payment of Rs.2,96,910/- towards ESI contribution for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Court, but no sufficient opportunity was given and the same is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner paid payment of Rs,2,99,228/- by way of Demand Draft on 21.12.2019, even after that the second respondent passed the impugned order on 10.01.2022. Thereafter, the second respondent issued another notice dated 27.05.2020 directing to make contribution of Rs.16,15,653/- which includes the contribution of Rs.8,97,682/-, interest of Rs.7,15,621/- and further interest of Rs.2,350/-, in total. Since already the school was closed, the petitioner was not in a position to pay the above said amount. In the meantime, the second respondent passed a prohibitory order dated 10.01.2022 prohibiting and restraining the bank account of the petitioner school being maintained by the petitioner. The second respondent has no right to pass such order. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that already the respondents passed order under Section 45 A of ESI Act by quantifying the amount and the impugned order is the consequential order. Without challenging the order passed by the authorities under of ESI Act, the petitioner straight away challenged this order.

Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

5. It is an admitted fact that the school was closed by the proceedings of the first respondent through proceedings No.O.Mu.No.1111/Aa1/2021, dated 10/2021. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has passed an order under Section 45 A of the ESI Act on 10.01.2022. According to the petitioner, no notice was served to him about the order passed by the second respondent under of the ESI Act. Therefore, they are unable to challenge the said order. Learned counsel submits that the writ petition is maintainable since without giving opportunity the said order has been passed and relied on the following judgments of this Court:

(i) M/s.Joshua Matriculation School Vs. ESI Corporation in W.P.No.15405 of 2020;

(ii) M.Kannan Vs ESI Corporation and others in W.P.No.722 of

2024.

6. On a careful perusal of the said judgments would show that they will not applicable to the facts of the present case, whereas in W.P.No.15405 of 2020, this Court held that dues cannot be recovered during the Covid 19 Pandemic period and in W.P.No.722 of 2024, where the petitioner was not related to the business of the establishment against which the order has been passed. In the case on hand, the petitioner a