The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The court held the writ petition is disposed of on maintainability grounds, directing the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20566 of 2014
======================================================
M/s. GPT Rahee ( JV), Reg. Office: Jeevansatya, DD -06, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700064 Having local office: Opposite Polson Dairy, Digha Ghat, P.S. – Digha, District - Patna Through its Senior Manager (Commercial), vikas Sharma, son of Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Anshuman
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 27-07-2015 Heard Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Anshuman, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents/ Employees State Insurance Corporation.
The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of assessment order dated 23.7.2014 issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition).
At the very outset, Dr. Anshuman raised preliminary
Patna High Court CWJC No.20566 of 2014 (3) dt.27-07-2015
2/2
objection on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that against the impugned order there was statutory provision under Section 45-AA of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and petitioner by surpassing the statutory provision of Appeal, has approached this court. After objection being raised, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for disposal of the writ petition, so that, petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal. He submits that since immediately after the impugned order the petitioner has approached this court assailing the same in the writ petition, the period consumed by the petitioner during the intervening period may be directed to be excluded while considering the limitation matter.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
It goes without saying that if Appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, the same may be decided on its merit after hearing the parties.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
Praful/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the statutory provision for appeal under Section 45-AA of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
M/s. GPT Rahee
The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation
The Deputy Director (Authorized Officer), Employees State Insurance Corporation
The Deputy Director (Recovery officer), Employees State Insurance Corporation
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
