JUDGMENT
C.K. Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing letter dated November 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Director (Recovery) of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 64,325/- along with interest, the dues outstanding against Balmiki Press.
2. In view of the order, which I propose to pass in this application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the authority of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation issued the impugned notice demanding payment of Rs. 64,325/-from the petitioner alongwith interest on the ground that it had taken over Balmiki Press and in view of Section 93-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, as the said establishment has been transferred in favour of the petitioner, the amount outstanding against Balmiki Press has to be paid by the petitioner.
3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that it had not taken over the Balmiki Press and without giving any opportunity or notice to the petitioner, it had been asked to pay the dues outstanding against Balmiki Press on the purported ground that it had been taken over by the petitioner. This writ application was filed on May 1, 2002 but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed denying the assertion of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Mukteshwar Dayal appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the question as to whether the Balmiki Press has been taken over by the petitioner is a question of fact which requires to be determined after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the authority having come to the said conclusion without giving any notice to the petitioner, itself vitiates the order.
5. Mr. Arun Shrivastava appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that in view of Section 93-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, petitioner is liable to pay the outstanding dues of Balmiki Press as it had taken over the same.
6. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Dayal. Whether Balmiki Press in fact has been taken over by the petitioner is a question of fact which requires to be determined after giving notice/opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner’s assertion that before taking the decision he was not given any opportunity has not been denied. In that view of the matter, the decision of the authority that the petitioner has taken over the Balmiki Press cannot be allowed to stand.
7. Petitioner shall appear before the authority within six weeks from today and the authority after giving opportunity to the petitioner shall pass order within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
8. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with the direction aforesaid.