hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2006 Yogendra Swarup Agarwal, Proprietor, M/s. Maharaja Silk Mills ... Petitioner Versus B.K. Srivastav, Recovery Officer, E.S.I. Corporation ... Respondents Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. M.M. Gujar and Mr. S. Kulkarni i/by M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondents. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C. The above writ petition is for hearing and final disposal. 2. The petitioner has in the writ petition prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the show cause notices bearing Nos. 35/RRC/MRL. 9716, 9717, 9718/31-10341, dated 23rd January, 2006 whereby the petitioners were 1 hvn called upon to pay the amount of arrears of contribution and interest thereon in terms of recovery certificates issued in Form NO. C-19, dated 16.1.2004 for the sum of Rs.1,38,472/-; second recovery certificate dated 16-1-2004 for the sum of Rs.1,02,548/- (Rs.33,023/- + 69,525/-) being interest thereon for the period August 1988 to December, 1989; third recovery certificate dated 16-1-2004 for the period April, 1988 to December, 1988 for a sum of Rs.30,931; and the fourth recovery certificate for the assessment and contribution for period January, 1989 to March, 1989 issued in Form No. C-18 dated 14-1-2004 for a sum of Rs.3,828/- which has also been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were called upon to pay certain amounts for the said periods under the amnesty scheme which amounts the petitioners have already paid. This position is also clear from the order dated 5.9.2002 passed by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1999 along with Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 146 to 151 of 2000. Admittedly, after the said payments were made under the amnesty scheme by the petitioners, respondents have issued suit notices calling upon the petitioners to pay an aggregate amount of Rs.2,35,951/- as per the above recovery certificates. It is pointed out on 2 hvn behalf of the petitioners and in my view correctly that after the payments were made by the petitioners as required by the respondents under the amnesty scheme, the question of calling upon the petitioners to pay any further amounts for the same period does not and cannot arise. The learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that it is true that the demand made on the petitioners pertains to the same period as regards which the petitioners have made payments under the amnesty scheme. He submits that he does not have necessary papers to establish the subsequent claim made by the respondents through the impugned certificates and is therefore, unable to make any submissions in support of the said certificates. In view thereof, the respondents have failed to establish as to how they are justified in making the demands under the impugned certificates. In view thereof, show cause notice dated 23.1.2006 as well as the impugned certificates are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. (S.J. KATHAWALLA,J.) 3