Allahabad High Court
M/S Bharat Industries And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:111932
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25564 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S Bharat Industries And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Umesh Chandra Kesarwani
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 4.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.12.2019, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Presiding Officer under the Building and Other Construction Worker's (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996"), levying cess for an additional amount of Rs.3,13,000/- over and above what was voluntarily deposited by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the said order on the basis of fact that said order has been passed beyond period of limitation and there are was error in computation while calculating the said cess.
4. Preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioners have efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603. The Apex Court in the said case has observed as under :-
"It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226."
5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are willing and ready to be relegated to avail alternate remedy of appeal under Section 9 of Act, 1996. He prays that competent authority may be directed to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents do not object to the above prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 within one month from today. In case any such appeal is filed by the petitioners within the stipulated period, the competent authority is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date of filing of appeal, in accordance with law and on merits.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
