IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12150 of 2009 ***** Kamaljit Singh son of Sri Harbans Singh, Proprietor M/s Hans Pal Hotel, Budh Marg, opposite Bhumi Vikash Bank, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna – 800001 through its Regional Director. 3. The Assistant Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna – 800001. 4. The Deputy Director (Revenue Recovery Officer), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna – 800001. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the E.S.I. : Mr. Anshuman, Advocate For the State : Mr.T.N.Ambastha, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-12. ---------- 2. 14.9.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing of Certificate Case No.5750 dated 12/14.5.2009, which is for recovery of a sum of Rs.93,915/-. This is the amount which has been fixed by the E.S.I. authorities based on so-called decision dated 12.2.2009 (Annexrue- 9 to the writ application). Submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that it is a case of comedy of errors merely because the petitioner has set- up a new establishment in the name of ‘Hans Pal Hotel’ having the word ‘Pal’ which probably had liability of payment of E.S.I. against an institution which used to be run at the same place years ago. Petitioner has brought on record many a documents to show that he has no past - 2 - association with the original establishment. After the earlier proprietor or the company had vacated the premises a fresh lease was entered into by the landlord, registration of the new firm with various authorities including obtaining the new electric connection has been done in the name of petitioner’s institution. The petitioner’s hotel/restaurant has come into existence only on 6.7.2006 or just about that period but liability has been fixed for years on a presumption that the institution or the entity is the same. He further submits that all these materials had been provided to the authorities but without taking the same into consideration the liability has been worked out and fastened upon the present petitioner. Learned counsel representing the E.S.I. submits that the authorities have gone with the material and evidence which was before them. Since the petitioner initially did not cooperate in the adjudication of the matter the authorities were left with no option but to come to the conclusion, they have. Without getting into the controversy whether the petitioner cooperated or did not cooperate but there are certain materials to show that the matter does require reconsideration and the petitioner is now willing to assist the E.S.I. authorities on the issue by furnishing whatever documents he has in his possession. The prima facie material being available for reconsideration, the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities after quashing the impugned order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure-9) as well as notice dated 12/14.05.2009 (Annexure-1), which is the Certificate Case with a direction to the petitioner that he shall appear on a date which will be fixed by the respondent authorities and - 3 - place this matter for consideration along with the supporting documents, make his submission in this regard and the respondent no.2 would be well obliged to decide the matter based on the evidence and after hearing the parties. The outcome of the said decision will govern the issue. Needless to say that in view of the above direction the E.S.I. Case No.7/09, which has been filed by the petitioner will have no meaning and the petitioner is well advised to withdraw the same. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)