Telangana High Court
WP/4048/2006 of T.Venkata Ratnam, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation, on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.4048 of 2006 Dated: 27.12.2007 Between T.Venkata Ratnam …Petitioner And Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office at 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and two others …Respondents THE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.4048 of 2006
Dated: 27.12.2007
Between
T.Venkata Ratnam
…Petitioner
And
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office at 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road,Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.4048 of 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugnedorder vide No.AP/SRO/VJA/Ins.II/62-16007-101, dated 31.08.2005 andconsequently passing attachment orders, as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently to set aside the same.
On 02.03.2006, this Court issued rule nisi and inW.P.M.P.No.5045 of 2006 passed the following interim order:
“Interim stay on condition of thepetitioner depositing an amount of Rs.31,500/-(Rupees thirty one thousand five hundred only)
before the 2[nd] respondent within a period offour weeks from today. However, it is madeclear that if the petitioner fails to deposit theamount, as indicated above, it is open for therespondents to take steps in accordance withlaw.
Notice.”
The learned counsel on record Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Raorepresenting the petitioner, Sri R.N.Reddy representing respondentNos. 1 and 2 and Sri K.Chidambaram representing respondent No.3made submissions at length taking this Court through the respectivepleadings of the parties and the stands taken by the parties. Strongreliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Courtreported in Ashok Leyland Limited, Ductron, Castings Limited,R.R. District v. Deputy Tahsildar/Special Revenue Inspector (ESI),Recovery Cell, Collectorate, R.R. District, Hyderabad[[1]].
It is not in serious controversy that the impugned order is anappealable order and an appeal lies against it before the ESI Courtunder Section 75 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. It isalso stated that inasmuch as the conditional order, dated 02.03.2006,had already been complied with, liberty may be given to the petitionerto invoke the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal.
The deposit made in pursuance of the order of this Court dated02.03.2006 is hereby recorded and liberty is given to the petitioner toinvoke the alternative remedy of appeal within six weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.
_______________
P.S.Narayana, J
Date: 27.12.2007va
[1]2001 (4) ALD 96 (DB)