IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.24289 of 2001 Between: Raasi Refractories Ltd., reptd., by its Senior Manager (Legal) M. Rami Reddy, S/o.Sri Raji Reddy, 40 years, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Mandal Revenue Officer, Ameerpet Mandal, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1 and R.2. Sri V.Hari Haran for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for setting aside the distraint order dated 22-11-2001 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner is an employer and respondent No.3 is an employee. As gratuity was payable to respondent No.3, he obtained a certiﬁcate from respondent No.2; in execution of which respondent No.1 issued the impugned distraint order. The only ground on which the impugned order is questioned in this Writ Petition is that since respondent No.3 worked in the petitioner’s factory at Lakshmipuram, Narketpally, Nalgonda District, it is only the controlling authority at Nalgonda, who has jurisdiction to issue the certiﬁcate, but not respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the impugned order was issued by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the certiﬁcate issued by respondent No.2; and that the validity of the said certiﬁcate has not been questioned by the petitioner. I ﬁnd force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the certiﬁcate issued by respondent No.2, it is entitled to question its validity. Unless the certiﬁcate issued by respondent No.2 is invalidated by a competent Court of law, the petitioner cannot challenge the consequential action taken by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the certiﬁcate issued by respondent No.2. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is another reason for my disinclination to grant any relief to the petitioner, because even according to the petitioner, it got ﬁled vakalat before respondent No.2 and took adjournment for ﬁling counter- aﬃdavit in a pending proceeding. I do not ﬁnd any reason, whatsoever, for the petitioner to ﬁle this Writ Petition even before conclusion of the said proceedings. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the legal remedies available to it to question the validity of the certiﬁcate issued by respondent No.2. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:15-11-2008 MNR