JUDGMENT 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Upon receipt of the aforementioned letter, Mr. Rajendra Prasad submits that the petitioners immediately protested and sent a letter dated 3.12.1986 to the Regional Director informing that the Establishment was a very small establishment and that it employed only 6/7 persons and their salary was much less and that the matter should be reconsidered upon proper assessment. 5. Upon receipt of the aforementioned letter, Mr. Rajendra Prasad submits that the petitioners immediately protested and sent a letter dated 3.12.1986 to the Regional Director informing that the Establishment was a very small establishment and that it employed only 6/7 persons and their salary was much less and that the matter should be reconsidered upon proper assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforementioned letter/representation of the Petitioner was not considered and in the meantime a Notice dated 15.6.1987 (Annexure-4) was served upon the Petitioner asking it to file cause within 30 (thirty) days or to pay the admitted sum. The aforementioned Notice was under the provisions of Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demand Recovery) Act, 1914 and it was accompanied by a requisition snowing initiation of Certificate Case No. 2/87-88. This Notice and the Requisition are Annexure-4 to the Writ Application. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a detailed Cause before the Certificate Officer (Respondent No. 3) denying its liability vide Annexure-5 whereafter by a reasoned order and on the basis of materials available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Certificate Officer came to the conclusion that the proceeding does not come within the purview of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and accordingly dropped the same by order dated 30.5.1990 as contained at Annexure-6. 6. Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the respondents has on the other, hand submitted that the impugned Warrant of Attachment and the seizure was made against the petitioner for non compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act and also for non-compliance of the Demand Notice which was issued in the prescribed format. According to Mr. Das, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Employees State Insurance Act, itself, and therefore should not be allowed to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Das has further asserted that the Certificate Officer, Giridih acted beyond his, authority and therefore they had the right to initiate fresh proceeding for recovery of arrears which had remained unrealized and therefore the judgment of the Certificate Officer, Giridih is of no consequence. 7. This Court does not appreciate the stand of the Respondents inasmuch as if they were aggrieved by the order of the Certificate Officer, then they could have appeared before the Certificate Officer and taken these points before the Court. 7. This Court does not appreciate the stand of the Respondents inasmuch as if they were aggrieved by the order of the Certificate Officer, then they could have appeared before the Certificate Officer and taken these points before the Court. The order dated 30.5.1990 shows that the Respondents had submitted their comments on 22.3.1988 through Post, but thereafter nobody turned up to make any submission. Mr. S.N. Das further states and submits that the letter of the Regional Director to the Collector was a request made to him to realize the amount determined under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. According to him, the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act is a self contained code and the Collector could not have transmitted the matter to the District Certificate Officer, In fact, according to Mr. Das, if the Petitioners had any grievance then the remedy available to it was in terms of Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 which lays down that he could have denied his liability only after making the payment and thereafter instituted a Suit for recovery of the amount or part thereof so paid. At paragraph 12; the Petitioner has specifically stated that he sent a letter dated 3.12.1986 praying for an opportunity to produce record but that paragraph has not been answered in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents. 8. In other words, the repeated assertion of the Petitioner to the effect that the Petitioner-Establishment does not come within the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has not been taken into consideration. Section 2(12) of the said Act reads as follows :-- "Factory", means any premises including the precincts thereof- (a) whereon ten or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on, or (b) whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (32 of 1952) or a railway running shed;" 9. The petitioners have repeatedly stated that it is a small establishment, employs only 5 to 6 or 6 to 7 workers and therefore, it cannot be said to be a factory within the meaning of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. They have further submitted that unless the Petitioner is considered to be a factory within the meaning of the Act, none of the provisions of the said Act can be allowed to be applied to the Petitioner and consequently the Notices purporting to have been sent under the provisions of the said Act cannot also be allowed to be issued against the Petitioner 10. Whether the Petitioner employs 5 (five) or 6 (six) employees or more is a matter which falls within the domain of factual investigation and that cannot be decided in a Writ Application. Similarly, the arguments of Mr. S.N. Das to the effect that the remedy available to the Petitioner was to take resort to Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act should not be allowed at this stage unless there is an adjudication by a competent authority that the Petitioner falls within the parameters of the said Act. The provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act could have been invoked only if the Respondent-Officers could be said to have the necessary Jurisdiction to make the assessment under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. 11. For all these reasons, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that unless there is an adjudication and unless the Petitioner is given an opportunity to prove his case, the Demands/Warrants of Attachment and Seizure cannot be allowed. 12. For the reasons stated above, the Warrant of Attachment dated 9.5.1995 and the consequential Seizure dated 14.11.1995 are hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The Regional Director of the said Corporation shall act in accordance with law and shall first decide as to whether the Petitioner comes within the jurisdiction of the Employees State Insurance Act at all or not, Such adjudication must be made after giving notice to the Petitioner and after giving all reasonable and adequate opportunity to it either through its authorized representative or through its counsel to present its case. It goes without saying that the Petitioner must cooperate in the same. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Application is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.