TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) IN this case, the Writ Petitioner has prayed for quashing the Warrant of Attachment of Immovable property (Annexure -7) dated 9.5.1995 which was served on the Petitioners on 13.11.1995. The Petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the Seizure of the Articles made on 14.11.1995 as would be evident from Annexure -8. The Petitioners have also prayed for release of the seized articles in their favour. The main argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that for the self -same cause of action, the matter had already been settled and the proceeding initiated were dropped by the District Certificate Officer, Giridih on 30.5.1990 by An -nexure -5 and therefore, 5 (five) years thereafter the matter could not have been kept alive nor could the Respondents be said to have the necessary jurisdiction to once again harass and humiliate the Petitioner by issuance of Warrant of Attachment and consequent seizure of property.
(3.) THE Petitioners have stated that it is a small establishment which employs only 5/6 members and is not covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. They have further stated that notwithstanding thereof, the Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation) arbitrarily determined a sum of Rs. 9,571.30 on an ad hoc basis. According to Mr. Rajendra Prasad, this Respondent also wrongly recorded the number of employees to 10 and presumed that they were getting salary at the rate of Rs. 880/ - per month. The aforementioned ad hoc calculation was made for the period 3.8.1984 to 31.3.1986 by Annexure -1 and on the basis of such determination, the Regional Director sent a letter to the Collector at Patna vide letter dated 19.11.1986 (Annexure -2) requesting realization of the amount mentioned above under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.;