IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4995 of 2004 SHRIKRISHNA GOSHALA , QUILA ROAD, P.S. CHOWK PATNA CITY, DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ISHWAR LAL AGARWAL, S/O LT. JAYASI RAM AGARWAL --- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, PATNA-1, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, PATNA-1. 3. INSURANCE INSPECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, PATNA-1. ******* For the petitioner: M/S Alok Kumar Sinha, with Indrajeet and Manish Kumar, Advocates. For the Corporation: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, Advocate. ******* 4/ 29-03-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and validity of order, contained in letter No. 11666-101/182 dated 15/17.04.2002 (Annexure-1), issued by respondent no.2- Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been shown to be provisionally covered w.e.f. 10.04.2000 under the provisions of The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short “the Act”), and he has been allotted a Code number. He is also aggrieved by a notice dated 29.04.2003 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent No.2 asking him to show cause as to why the petitioner be not prosecuted 2 under the provisions of section 85(a) and 85A of the said Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that before issuance of impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, and issuance of impugned notice (Annexure-6) in the present case, the State Government was required to issue a notification in terms of section 1(5) of the Act extending the provisions of the Act with respect to a Goshala also. He submits that in fact, no notification in terms of section 1(5) of the Act has been issued by the respondent concerned extending the provisions of the Act with respect to the petitioner, which is a Goshala. Therefore, in his submission, the aforesaid impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 and the notice, as contained in Annexure-6, are wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, has placed reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. He submits that if the petitioner is at all aggrieved with the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, and show- cause notice, as contained in Annexure-6, and if it is further claimed by the petitioner that he is not covered under the provisions of the Act, then he was obliged to 3 raise a dispute under section 75(1)(g) of the Act and since he has not done so within the statutory period of time, now his claims are completely misconceived. He further submits that though the petitioner has been registered as a charitable institution, but it is indulged in the commercial activities also. Therefore, in his submission, impugned order (Annexure-1) is perfectly valid and legal. 5. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner must exhaust his alternative remedy available to him under the provisions of section 75 of the Act. Admittedly, Employees State Insurance Court is functioning at Patna having the jurisdiction over the area in which the petitioner is situate. The issue raised by the petitioner herein that the provisions of the Act shall not be applicable with respect to the petitioner, shall also be gone into besides other issues raised by the petitioner in E.S.I. Court. It is further directed that the dispute raised by the petitioner in terms of section 75 of the Act shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The matter must be gone into and decided on the basis of the material placed by the parties in support of their respective claims. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the 4 Employees State Insurance Court, Patna with a proper petition in a proper format within a period of four weeks from today accompanied by a certified copy of the present order. If such a petition is filed in terms of section 75 of the Act, then the same shall be considered on its own merit and all endeavours shall be made to dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such petition. 7. Till the matter is finally disposed of by the Employees State Insurance Court, Patna, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner for realization of any assessed amount. It is further made clear that if the petitioner does not file any petition within the time prescribed by this Court with a certified copy of the present order, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition stood rejected in limine. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)