WP(C) 1715/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate for the respo ndent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ p etition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage. 3. This instant writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2010 passed by the Certificate Officer, Nagaon in CC No. 1 of 2004-2 005, whereby and whereunder it was held that nothing could be recovered from the legal heirs of the deceased (Md. Wazuddin Ahmed) for realisation of the amount to the tune to Rs. 4,99,843/- as per certificate issued under Section 31 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 that addressed to Bakijai Officer, Bakijai Bran ch, Nagaon, Assam. 4. On account of death of the petitioner’s son Md. Jalaluddin in th e rice mill during his employment on 25-8-98, the petitioner filed an applicatio n before the Labour Commissioner, Nagaon against Md. Wazuddin Ahmed, the predece ssors-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 claiming compensation of an amou nt of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The petition so filed was registered as Case No. NWC 48/98 and the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation after due inquiry vide judgment an d order dated 18-3-2002 awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,16,910/- with i nterest @ 12% per month to be calculated on and from 25-8-1998. On account of fa ilure on the part of the Md. Wazuddin Ahmed to deposit the amount with the Commi ssioner, Workmen’s Compensation, on issuance of certificate by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, the Bakijai Officer, Nagaon proceeded against Md. Wazud din Ahmed for realisation of the amount as indicated in the certificate dated 28 -1-2004 (Annexure-II to the writ petition). The aforesaid bakijai case was regis tered as CC NO. 1 of 2004-2005. On the death of Md. Wazuddin Ahmed, the responde nt Nos. 5 to 7 being his legal heirs were impleaded/substituted in the bakijai p roceeding. On account of inaction on the part of the Bakijai Officer in realisin g of the amount so indicated in the certificate, the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(c) No. 6603 of 2007 and this court whil e disposing the said writ petition vide order dated 4-8-2008 directed the Bakij ai Officer, Nagaon to dispose the Bakijai Case No. 1 of 2004-2005 within a perio d of 6(six) months. Despite such direction, the Bakijai Officer sat over the mat ter and being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again approached this court by f iling another writ petition being WP(C) No. 633 of 2010 and this court while dis posing the said writ petition on 29-1-2010 directed compliance of the order pass ed in WP(c) No. 6603 of 2007. Thereafter, the Bakijai Officer proceeded with the case No. CC 1 of 2004-2005 initiated against the respondents and disposed of th is case by the order impugned herein holding that nothing could be recovered fro m the legal heirs of their predecessors-in-interest. 5. The aforesaid order has been impugned basically on two grounds ( 1) while proceeding with the CC Case No. 1 of 2004-2005, the petitioner was neve r given opportunity to place before it about devolution of property(s) on respon dent Nos. 5 to 7 on the death of Md. Wazuddin Ahmed, which would have been suffi cient for realisation the amount as indicated in the certificate issued by the C ommissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, (2) that the impugned order was passed by t he Certificate Officer behind the back of the petitioner without giving an oppor tunity of being heard. 6. On the above two grounds, Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel cont ends that the impugned order cannot stand in the eye of law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Addl. Govt. Advoca te appearing for the official respondents submits before this court that there b eing arose a disputed question of fact, the writ petitioner could have approache d the appropriate forum for remedy. It is also submitted by him that disputed qu estion of fact cannot be decided by a writ court while exercising jurisdiction u nder Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to support of his claim it is bro ught to the notice of the court that there appears nothing in the order to show whether properties of the deceased Wazuddin on his death devolved on the respond ent Nos. 5 to 7 and such fact is to be ascertained through evidence. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Cou rt for realization of the amount as indicated in the certificate issued by the C ommissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. 8. Per contra to the submissions advanced by Mr. B.J. Talukdar, lea rned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. N. C. Das, learned Sr. counsel relying on the rat io laid in the case between Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others; reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 contends that the existence of al ternative remedy cannot impose a bar to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under the following three contingencies a writ petition wou ld be maintainable, although an alternative remedy can be availed of : (a) Whether the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the f undamental right; (b) Whether there has been violation of principle of natural justice ; and (c) Whether the order or proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is under challenged. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under : 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to t he facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ p etition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Cour t would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has b een consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three co ntingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the prin ciple of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-l aw on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rel y on some old decisions of the evolutionary era or the constitutional law as the y still hold the field. 9. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the writ petitioner to place his grievance before the Certificate Officer and further no opportunity was als o given to the writ petitioner to place the information about devolving of the p roperties of late Md. Wazuddin Ahmed, predecessors-in-interest on respondent Nos . 5 to 7. On account of non-payment of the amount as granted and certificated, the petitioner’s fundamental right seemed to have been violated. There appears a lso the violation of the principle of natural justice. 10. In view of the above, this court considers that the impugned ord er passed by the Certificate Officer, Nagaon is erroneous and illegal and it sho uld not stand in the way. The aforesaid order is accordingly set aside and quash ed. 11. The matter is remanded back to the Certificate Officer to make a fresh inquiry for the realisation of the amount as indicated in the certificate . The whole exercise in respect of the CC Case No. 1 of 2004-2005 shall be compl eted of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order. 12. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.