A writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under the governing legislation.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2025, passed by respondent no.2, annexure no.8 to the writ petition, as well as recovery citation dated 10.04.2026 issued by respondent no.4, annexure no.9 to the writ petition.

2. By the order dated 17.12.2025 the petitioner was inflicted with a cess of ₹1,22,039/- under the provisions of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, (Act No.28 of 1996). The cess was imposed under the aforesaid Act for welfare of the buildings and other construction workers. Before inflicting the cess upon the petitioner a show cause notice was issued to him on 08.07.2025 by respondent no.2 calling upon him to show cause as to why cess be not imposed upon him for raising construction of a commercial building at Haridwar-Dehradun Road, Raiwala, Rishikesh. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the respondent no.2 and sought time to show cause, but later on he failed to submit any show cause to the notice dated 08.07.2025, which resulted into passing of the final order dated 17.12.2025, annexure no.8 to the writ petition. The recovery citation is consequential to the order dated 17.12.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that construction of the restaurant was being done by two Contractors namely, Tohid Ali and Haseen and under the definition clause of Employer “it is only a contractor who would be held liable to pay cess and not the petitioner who is the owner of the restaurant under construction” and he further submits that there is discrepancy in the construction area of the building/restaurant mentioned in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioner has got remedy of filing an appeal under Section 11 of the Act No.28 of 1996 and therefore due to availability of a remedy of statutory appeal, the writ is not maintainable.

5. Since statutory remedy is available to the petitioner so instead of coming straight to this Court challenging the impugned order he would maintain the appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 11 of the Act No.28 of 1996.

6. In such view of the matter no interference is required; however a liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appeal within a period of ten days’ from today i.e. on or before 17.05.2026 and till then no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal, the respondent would be at liberty to recover the cess amount, in accordance with law.

Petitioner is free to raise the argument raised before this Court before the Appellate Authority.

7. Writ petition accordingly disposed of finally.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.