M/s Sri Seetharamanjaneya Gas Co/ v. Sub Regional Office Padmanabha Buidlings, Gandhi Nagar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Dec 2004
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the above said
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44 . Since the jurisdiction of the impugned proceedings is not under challenge and it is only a consequential order in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 08-11-1999, 12-04-2000 and 17-10-2002, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit…
Judgment
Cause title
M/s Sri Seetharamanjaneya Gas Co/. Rep. by its Proprietrix Smt.M.Prasuna W/o.Nageswara Rao 73-13-9, A.V.Appa Rao Road Rajahmundry (E.G.District) AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The Asst. Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Sub Regional Office Padmanabha Buidlings, Gandhi Nagar Vijayawada-520 003. 2 The Recovery Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation Sub Regional Office Padmanabha Buidlings, Gandhi Nagar Vijayawada-520 003. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the action of the Respondents herein by issuing a writ of Mandamus that the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the order in his proceedings No.AP/SRO/VJA/PRO/62/Q/27228-43/04, dt.18.10.2004 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the said order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.GAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.G.RAVINDRA REDDY (S.C.for E.S.I.) The Court at the admission stage, made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO: 24071of 2004
ORDER:
When the petitioner failed to pay the arrears due under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, in respect of Recovery Certificate dated 08-11-1999, 12- 04-2000 & 17-10-2002, issued basing on the observation of the Insurance Inspector of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation in Memo dated 18-06-2002, the present impugned order dated 18-10-2004 is passed by the 1st respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner-company contended that the petitioner-company is nothing to do with the Company viz., Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Carbonic Acid Gas Manufacturing Company run by its Proprietor M.Nageswara Rao with his Code No.S2-3072-96, for which a show cause notice dated 12-10-2004 was issued.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the jurisdiction of the issuing authority of the proceedings dated 18-10-2004 is not under challenge and that a statutory appeal is provided under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and therefore, the petitioner has to avail that remedy in stead of filing the present writ petition.
Operative part
Since the jurisdiction of the impugned proceedings is not under challenge and it is only a consequential order in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 08-11-1999, 12-04-2000 and 17-10-2002, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority as provided under the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the above said observation. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 27, 2004 Kvr TO 1 The Asst. Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Sub Regional Office, Padmanabha Buidlings, Gandhi Nagar Vijayawada-520 003. 2 The Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation Sub Regional Office, Padmanabha Buidlings, Gandhi Nagar Vijayawada-520 003. 3 Two C.D. Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the above said
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Dec 2004. The bench was K C BHANU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.