UTTAM AGENCIES Vs. ASSTT. COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the recovery/execution proceedings being undertaken by respondent No.1 seeking to recover Rs.3,67,416/- along with interest against the petitioner in reference to case No.CWC/SDM/NL/11 (ECC/12/NW/11/1163-64) titled Nand Lal vs. M/s. Tata Tea and Mineral Water Co.".

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice dated 17th February, 2012 was received by the petitioner from the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the Assistant Collector for recovery of Rs.3,67,416/- along with interest from the petitioner. Objections were filed by the petitioner stating therein that Nand Lal was neither the employee of the petitioner nor the petitioner was M/s. Tata Tea and Mineral Water Company. Another notice was received by the petitioner in May, 2012 from the Court of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act on an application filed by the respondent under Section 46 CPC for issuance of percept against the judgment debtor. Reply/objections were filed by the petitioner, however, the petitioner was threatened by the official from office of SDM for execution of impugned order and unlawful recovery of the said amount. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No. 6232/2012. The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to decide the objections of respondent and till then, the execution of the order dated 29th November, 2011 was stayed. Respondent No.2 had passed an order dismissing the objection of the petitioner. Again the officials of respondent No.1 are threatening and pressurising the petitioner for execution of the order dated 29th November, 2011 which is not against the petitioner and is totally misdirected at the instance of respondent No.3. Counsel further submits that the objections have been dismissed without considering the material available on record as there was no evidence before the competent authority to prove either that the respondent No.3 was ever employee of the petitioner and even no award was passed against the petitioner. As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent objects to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to prefer an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act. Instead of availing that remedy, the writ petition has been filed which is not maintainable. Even on merits, the counsel submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for interference. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.