HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 19628 of 2009 DATED: 16.09.2009 Between: M/s.Guntur District Milk Producers .. Petitioner And 1. The Principal Secretary 2. The Director of Insurance Medical Services .. Respondents O R D E R: The assertion of the petitioner-M/s.Guntur District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Ltd, represented by its Labour Welfare Officer, is that the petitioner-Union is engaged in the business of procurement of milk and manufacturing of milk products. While so, the Government issued Notification dated 18.12.2000 extending the applicability of the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) to the area of the petitioner-union. It is stated that the Act was enacted by the Central Government to provide and ensure better medical facilities to the Employees of all undertakings both Government and Private, and Section 90 of the Act provides exemption to the undertakings from the purview of the Act where such undertakings are providing better medical facilities than those provided by the Corporation. As per the guidelines of the Government, the Dispensary, for availing the medical benefits by the Employees, should be located within 8 kms from the factory premises. The petitioner states that he made a representation dated 28.4.2009 seeking grant of E.S.I exemption under Section 90 read with Section 91 of the Act up to 31.3.2010 to all categories of employees since they are one of the successful co-operative bodies running with “No Profit and No Loss Basis” and helping the Farmer Community comprising nearly 1,00,000 milk producer- families in Guntur District. Then, the 2nd respondent-Director of Insurance Medical Services, sought clarification from its Sub-Regional Office at Vijayawada with regard to certification of distance between the petitioner-union situated at Vadlamudi village of Guntur District and the Dispensary situated at Tenali. Upon his directions, the S.R.O. Vijayawada, vide letter dated 16.1.2009, requested the APSRTC to send a letter to the 2nd respondent by assessing the distance between the petitioner-union and the Dispensary. The A.P.S.R.T.C, as requested by the S.R.O., issued a letter dt.12.3.2009 to the 2nd respondent confirming the distance as 15 kms. It is also stated the 2nd respondent convened a meeting on 09.09.2009 wherein it was decided that they are going to establish a dispensary within 8 kms from the petitioner-Union and forwarded the recommendation to the 1st respondent for necessary orders. Then, the petitioner made representations dated 10.07.2009 & 23.7.2009 to the 1st respondent requesting to grant E.S.I. exemption under Section 90 read with 91 of the Act, taking into consideration the distance factor, but it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent negatived the request of the petitioner on the ground that all the employees, numbering 82, covered under the provisions of the E.S.I. hail from Tenali and attached to the Dispensary at Tenali and there is no need to grant exemption. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the representations dated 10.07.2009 and 23.07.2009 said to have been filed by the petitioner are pending consideration before the 1st respondent, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the representations dated 10.07.2009 & 23.7.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 16th September, 2009 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj