M.Y.EQBAL, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, JJ. - (1.) Heard the parties. A recovery proceeding was initiated against the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 89,601/- under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. In execution of the said order, certain attachments were made under Section 45-C of the Act. However, the authority took recourse under Section 45-G of the Act and attached the bank account. The said order of the attachment of bank account was challenged by the appellant in CWJC No. 287 of 2001. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on February 21, 2003 holding that the respondents were justified in applying Section 45-G of the Act in issuing the order of attachment of bank account.
(2.) Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge on the ground that one recourse has been taken under Section 45-C of the Act and movable properties have been attached the amount could have been realized only by auction sale of those attached properties and recourse to Section 45-G of the Act was not justified.
(3.) We are not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel. Section 45-G of the Act confers power upon the authority to take recourse to the attachment of bank account for the recovery of dues notwithstanding the issuance of certificate under Section 45-C of the said Act.;