IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2285 of 2009 Between: S. Laxmikanth Reddy S/o. S. Narsimha Reddy Kanmanoor Village, Nerva Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Employees State Insurance Corporation, rep. by its Regional Director, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. 2 Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or a writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the proceedings in 52.Q/8669-00, dated 12.01.2009 of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction. Further declare that the petitioner establishment does not come under the purview of ESI Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOKASATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.2285 of 2009 Order: Questioning the action of the second respondent, the Recovery Officer, ESI Corporation, in issuing the impugned show cause notice, dated 12.01.2009, under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison for failure to pay the arrears specified in Certificate No.AP/Ins.II/22-8669-00, dated 15.05.2002, 14.03.2002, 15.05.2002, 31.07.2002 and 05.08.1993, issued by the Deputy Director, ESI Corporation, Hyderabad amounting to Rs.13,21,967/-, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents, without issuing the certificate and without providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, have straightaway issued the impugned notice, which is arbitrary and illegal. The learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that as per the provisions of Section 45 (c) of the Act, the competent authority has determined the amount and the petitioner was already issued the certificate, but he has not challenged the same before the Court constituted under Section 74 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for ESI appearing for the respondents, and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admissions stage. The impugned notice is merely a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation thereto. In fact, the notice provides an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The petitioner without submitting his explanation filed the present writ petition, and thereby giving no scope for the respondents to consider his explanation. As of now, there is no adverse order passed by the respondents, against which, the petitioner can have any grievance. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, and on submitting his explanation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. In the event of any adverse order being passed by the respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the same in appropriate proceedings. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 10.02.2009 VGB