Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2903/2026 of GIRISH AGARWAL Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 5 ORS on 23 July 2026
GAHC010105072026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2903/2026 GIRISH AGARWAL S/O- SHIV BHAGWAN AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF 2/121, 3RD FLOOR, SUNDER VIHAR, PASCHIM VIHAR, DELHI-110087. 2: RUCHIKA AGARWAL W/O- GIRISH AGARWAL RESIDENT OF
GAHC010105072026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2903/2026
GIRISH AGARWAL
S/O- SHIV BHAGWAN AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF 2/121, 3RD FLOOR, SUNDER VIHAR, PASCHIM VIHAR, DELHI-110087.
2: RUCHIKA AGARWAL
W/O- GIRISH AGARWAL
RESIDENT OF 2/121
3RD FLOOR
SUNDER VIHAR
PASCHIM VIHAR
DELHI-110087.
3: MASTER BHAVYA AGARWAL
MINOR
THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN/NEXT FRIEND
SMT. RUCHIKA AGARWAL
RESIDENT OF 2/121
3RD FLOOR
SUNDER VIHAR
PASCHIM VIHAR
DELHI-110087. PETITIONER NO. 3 THROUGH PETIONER NO. 2 AS
MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN/ NEXT FRIEND.
4: MASTER LAVIT AGARWAL
MINOR
THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN/ NEXT FRIEND
SMT RUCHIKA AGARWAL
RO 2/121
3RD FLOOR
SUNDER VIHAR
PASCHIM VIHAR
DELHI 110087
THROUGH PETITIONER NO 2 AS MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN/NEXT
FRIEND
VERSUS
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 5 ORS
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR/ AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAN, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
2:THE RECOVERY OFFICER
ESIC
N. E. REGION
OFFICE OF RECOVERY OFFICER/ RECOVERY BRANCH
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
PANCHDEEP BHAWAN
REGIONAL OFFICE
BAMUNIMAIDAN
GUWAHATI- 781021
ASSAM
3:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
OFFICER WHO HAD PASSED THE ALLEGED SECTION 45A ORDER
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
REGIONAL OFFICE/BRANCH OFFICE
GUWAHATI/ TINSUKIA
ASSAM
4:THE BRANCH MANAGER
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
ESIC BRANCH OFFICE
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
5:HDFC BANK LTD
THROUGH ITS NODAL OFFICER/ COMPLIANCE OFFICER/ LEGAL OFFICER
REGISTERED OFFICE/ HEAD OFFICE- HDFC BANK HOUSE
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG
LOWER PAREL (WEST)
MUMBAI- 400013
CORPORATE/ ADDITIONAL SERVICE ADDRESS- RAMON HOUSE
169
BACKBAY RECLAMATION
H.T. PAREKH MARG
CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI-400020.
6:THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFC BANK LTD
TINSUKIA BRANCH 1ST FLOOR
ARJUN TOWERS
CHIRWAPATTY
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125.
7:THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFC BANK LTD
KOHAT ENCLAVE/ CONCERNED DELHI BRANCH
DELHI
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. D Deka Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. M Smith Standing Counsel, ESIC
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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
24.07.2026
Heard Mr. D Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Smith, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action taken by the respondent authorities on the basis of a prohibitory order dated 27.04.2026 issued by the respondent No.2.
3. It is seen that the prohibitory order dated 27.04.2026 is based upon the order dated 29.10.2025 passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, 1948.
4. Mr. D Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no copy of the said order dated 29.10.2025 was made available to the petitioner and as such the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court.
5. During the course of the hearing Mr. M Smith the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has provided a copy of the order dated 29.10.2025.
6. Mr. M Smith, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 further submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 45AA of the ESI Act, 1948.
7. Taking into account that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.
8. As this Court has not entertained the instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy and further that the learned counsel for the petitioner has been served with the order dated 19.10.2025 only during the course of the hearing, this Court directs that if an appeal under Section 45AA of the ESI Act, 1948 is preferred by the petitioner within a period of 30(thirty) days from today, the said appeal be decided on merits by the Appellate Authority without insisting on the question of limitation.
9. Before parting with the records, this Court further makes it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition on being not entertained shall not prejudice the petitioner in the appeal proceedings, if so preferred, as observed hereinabove.
10. The order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant