Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/23261/2026 of SRI VIVEKANANDA LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY Vs UNION OF INDIA on 2 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23261/2026 Between: 1. SRI VIVEKANANDA LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER/CHAIRMAN, SMT. G. REEMALATHA D/O GURUMURTHY, AGED 30 YEARS D.NO.16/665,
APHC010422952026
IN THE
THURSDAY,
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. SRI VIVEKANANDA
PRINCIPAL EMPLOY
GURUMURTHY, AGE
- 516001
1. UNION OF INDIA, RE
AND EMPLOYMENT,
DELHI -1
2. RECOVERY OFFICE
STATE INSURANCE
EMPLOYMENT, GO
NAGAR K.T.ROAD, T
Petition under Article
circumstances stated in th
pleased toissue a writ in t
appropriate writ, direction,
respondent herein in not
requesting to provide an op
the default amount by virt
dt. 10-09-2025 for Rs.6,30,
letter
vide
ref.No.7979
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 23261/2026
LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY, REP
YER/CHAIRMAN, SMT. G. REEMALA
ED 30 YEARS D.NO.16/665, MASAPET
...PE
AND
EP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MA
ER, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, EM
CORPORATION, MINISTRY OF LAB
OVT, OF INDIA, D.NO.6-1-77/A,VAR
TIRUPATI
...RESPON
226 of the Constitution of India praying e affidavit filed therewith, the High Co the nature of a writ of mandamus or order or orders declaring the action o consider the representation dt. 24- pportunity for personal hearing before fin ue of letter NO.79790485420030999/9
,448/- contribution from 2017 to 2020 a
0485420030999/CP/748829
dt.15-06-
RC,J
No.23261 of 2026
H
ATI
P. BY ITS
ATHA D/O
T, KADAPA
TITIONER
F LABOUR
ARG, NEW
MPLOYEE
OUR AND
RADARAJA
NDENT(S):
g that in the
urt may be
r any other
of the 2ND
07-2026
nalization of
920252200
and another for
RC,J
Rs.12,11,539/- towards contribution from 2017 to 2026 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected the petitioner's rights guaranteed under article 14 and 9(1
)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dt.24-07-2026 and to reconsider the default amount under the contribution from 2017 to 2026 by giving an opportunity to personal hearing before finalization of the default amount and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation dt.24-07-2026 to provide an opportunity for personal hearing before finalization of the default amount by virtue of letter NO.79790485420030999/9920252200 dt. 10-09-2025 for Rs.6,30,448/- contribution from to and
another
letter
vide
ref.No.79790485420030999/ CP/ 748829 dt. 15-06-2026 for Rs. 12,11,539/- towards contribution from 2017 to 2026 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.U.R.P. SRINIVAS
RC,J
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 questioning the action of respondent no.2 in not considering the representation dated 24.07.2026 submitted by the petitioner to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before finalization of the default amount by virtue of letter No.79790485420030999/9920252200, dated 10.09.2025 for Rs.6,30,448/- contribution from 2017 to 2020 for Rs.12,11,539/- and another letter vide Ref.No.79790485420030999/ CP/748829 dated 15.06.2026 for Rs.12,11,539/- towards contribution from 2017 to 2026 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. Heard Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri URP Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.
3. Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would submit that despite lapse of considerable time, the respondent authorities did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand U.R.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, submitted that the petitioner has submitted representation to the 2nd respondent- Recovery officer, who has no power or authority to consider the request made by the petitioner.
5. It is fairly settled that a court cannot direct an authority to consider a representation if that authority completely lacks the legal power or jurisdiction to grant or reject the request and before a court directs an authority to RC,J
dispose of a representation, it must first satisfy itself that the official has the legal competence to decide the matter.
6. Since respondent no.2 has no legal competence to decide the matter contained in the representation according to the respondents, a direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to make representation to appropriate authority, if he is advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 3rd September,2026.
RR