THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5298 OF 2010 Dated 9th March, 2010 Between: M/s Surya Teja Placement Maintenance and Services Contractors …Pettitioner And The Director General and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri D.Kanaka Sundar Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri P.Srinivasulu for Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing arrest warrant against the petitioner in pursuance of recovery award No.52.Q/18802-101, dated nil December, 2009 pending adjudication of E.I.Case No.1918 of 2009 before the E.I.Court, Nampally as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri D.Kanaka Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Srinivasulu, learned counsel representing Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Surya Teja Placement Maintenance and Services Contractors, which is involved in supply of manpower for maintenance on contract basis to the Principal employer, which is respondent No.3. A dispute has arisen in respect of payment of employees’ insurance under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. Warrant of attachment of immovable property issued vide proceedings dated 27.09.2009 was the subject matter of E.I.Case No.1918 of 2009 instituted by the petitioner before the E.I.Court and the same is pending. While so, by the impugned notice, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to appear in person on 21.12.2009 with original documents in support of the petitioner’s plea without fail. It is further stated that if the petitioner fails to do so, coercive action for recovery shall be initiated without any further notice or intimation. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.3, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner so far. The impugned proceeding is only in the nature of a notice by which the petitioner was called upon to appear and support his plea on the basis of the documents. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to put forth his case before respondent No.2. Until respondent No.2 passes an adverse order, no cause of action arises for the petitioner to avail any legal remedy much less to approach this Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as premature. The petitioner is entitled to approach respondent No.2 with appropriate defence and plead his case before him. If any order adverse to the petitioner’s interest is passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner will be entitled to avail appropriate remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.6819 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th March, 2010 vrn