JUDGMENT : U.N. Sinha, J.—This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, praying that the order passed on the 29th September, 1967 (Annexure F to the application) by the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau, acting as a Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act may be quashed. 2. The argument is that the officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The facts may be stated briefly. It was alleged that an accident had occurred on the 17th May, 1966, in which connection a petition was filed by the Inspector of Factories before the Deputy Commissioner, as Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, on the 30th August, 1966. The subject-matter of this petition was payment of compensation to the legal heirs of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, deceased. A notice dated the 15th September, was issued to the Petitioner before this Court, presumably u/s 10A(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In reply to this notice the Petitioner before us tent his reply contending that he was not at all liable to deposit any compensation on account of the death of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, on the facts and circumstances stated in the reply. 3. It appears that the matter was then sent for enquiry to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, and later, to a Magistrate named M.N. Raha, as mentioned in paras. 11 and 12 of this application. It appears, further, that in this connection further objections had been filed by the Petitioner, before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on the 7th and 12th September, 1967. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, acting as a Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, on the 29th September, 1967. By his order the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act has held that Sardar Guru Bachan Singh is liable to pay to the legal heirs of the deceased, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, an amount of Rs. 7,000 by way of compensation. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon Section 10-A (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and has contended that the procedure which has been followed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is illegal and that after the present Petitioner had disclaimed his liability, no order could be passed by the Commissioner determining finally the compensation to be given to the heirs of the deceased. Our attention has also been drawn to a notification of the State Government u/s 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, according to which, in contested cases, only the presiding officers of the Labour Courts are ex-officio Commissioners for workmen's compensation. The other officers mentioned in the notification were ex-officio Commissioners who could deal only with uncontested cases. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3, father of the deceased, has argued that this Court should not interfere in its writ jurisdiction when the aggrieved party could have filed an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that when the law on the subject is quite clear, there is no bar to this Court in entertaining a writ application at this stage. Section 10A (4) lays down that where the employer has disclaimed the liability, the Commissioner, after such enquiry as he may think fit, may inform the dependants of the deceased workman, that it is open to the dependants to prefer a claim for compensation and may give them such other further information as he may think fit. In this case, the Commissioner bad not done what he should have done under the provision of law. It is clear that Section 10-A (4) contemplates that when a contest has arisen before the Commissioner, the procedure to be followed is that the dependants will be given an opportunity to prefer a claim for compensation, upon which the matter will proceed according to various sections mentioned in this Act. 6. In the case of B. Rowell Roy v. Ka Thili Nonglyar AIR 1959 Ass 9, in an appeal arising u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the High Court pointed out the procedure to be followed in a contested case. It was held that when an employer, on notice, denies his liability, there was no power given to the Commissioner, u/s 10A to determine the amount of compensation and the liability of the employer. It was stated that in case there is an application preferred by the dependant claiming compensation, then the application has to be treated as one u/s 22 of the Act and thereafter the Compensation Officer acts as a civil Court in deciding the application. The procedure to be followed thereafter has also been indicated in this judgment. It was stated that in case there is an application preferred by the dependant claiming compensation, then the application has to be treated as one u/s 22 of the Act and thereafter the Compensation Officer acts as a civil Court in deciding the application. The procedure to be followed thereafter has also been indicated in this judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed in this case by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act was illegal and without jurisdiction and it should be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 has also urged that in the absence of the heirs mentioned in a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, opposite party No. 1, no relief can be given to the present Petitioner. I do not think that it is a valid objection and the dependants will 4ave their own right to proceed with their case after the Commissioner has taken action u/s 10A(4) of the Act The impugned order of the Commissioner (Anne xure F) is, therefore, quashed and the case is remanded to him for proceeding according to law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. B.N. Jha, J. 8. I agree.