Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAVRATAN PAWARI versus STATE OF RAJ AND ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NAVRATAN PAWARI v STATE OF RAJ AND ANR - CW Case No. 6151 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 3986 (16 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6151/2007

NAVRATAN PATWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

DATE: 16.08.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner.

****

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.07.2007 passed by the Deputy Director,

Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation,

Jaipur, whereby the petitioner is hold responsible to deposit the contribution amount to the tune of Rs. 3,17,997/- within a period of 15 days.

The case of the petitioner is that a show cause notice was issued on 12.03.2007 and in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.07.2007. It is stated by the respondents in the impugned order dated 17.07.2007 that neither the petitioner submitted any reply in response to the show cause notice dated 12.03.2007 nor he appeared in person for personal hearing.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order dated 17.07.2007.

It is not disputed that the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the order dated 17.07.2007. So far as reply submitted by the petitioner on 04.07.2007 is concerned, the same has been received and receipt is also given by the respondents. It is the duty of the respondents to consider the same prior to passing order under Section 45(C) to 45(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948').

As per the settled preposition of law no interference in the impugned order is required by this

Court at this stage, but looking to the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his reply which has not been considered, as observed herein above, it is expected from the respondents to consider the same before passing order under Section 45 of the Act of 1948 and if any order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner is passed by the respondents, then only the petitioner can redress his grievance before appropriate forum, but in any case, no writ, order or direction is required to be issued by this Court.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.