Judgment :- Challenge is made to the order of the recovery proceedings issued by the second respondent in TN/RECY/CP-1/51-36835/C.C.R.32195, 32196, dated 8. 2005, pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent IN 51 p/11/16/1/97/misc./1026 dated 3. 2005. The petitioner has brought forth the writ petition for the issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash those proceedings as illegal and to direct the first respondent to grant new registration number etc. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner took the premises bearing Nos.59, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Chennai-34 in the year 2001 on a monthly rental basis for starting a hotel business and accordingly he started the said business in the month of February, 2001, which has been running in the name and style of Sree Velu Military Hotel. He applied for Certificate of registration of his hotel with the Commercial Tax Officer, Madras, and the same was granted in May, 2001, with effect from 4. 2001. The registration has been renewed periodically. In the year 2001, licence was obtained from the Corporation of Chennai for running the business and he has been assessed professional tax and the same is also paid by him. Now the petitioner is an organization covered under the Employees Provident Fund of Madras Act and the Employees Insurance Act. The petitioner has been paying provident fund contribution from the year 2001, for the hotel without any default. The Employees Provident Fund Commissioner had also accepted the payment for the staff and workers from 2001. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that it applied for registration before the first respondent for making payment of ESI contribution and requested to allot new registration number, so that the payment of ESI contribution could be made without delay. But even after satisfying with the maintenance of the records on inspection, the first respondent did not allot new registration for making ESI contribution on the ground that there was arrears of ESI contribution by the previous owners of the premises. Under such circumstances, the petitioner by letter dated 5. 2001 addressed to the respondents stating that he had started the hotel only from February 2001 and made it clear that there is no arrear payable by him. Under such circumstances, the petitioner by letter dated 5. 2001 addressed to the respondents stating that he had started the hotel only from February 2001 and made it clear that there is no arrear payable by him. Therefore, the impugned notice of the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the previous owners arrears from April, 1998 to September 1999 and October 1999 to April 2001 amounting to Rs.1,52,457/-is irregular. Further it brought to the notice of the Court that in case if petitioner fails to make the payment, respondents would attach the property under the provisions of the ESI Act. Under the compelled circumstances, petitioner has brought forth this writ petition before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds on which the writ is asked for. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case, the only grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that even though all the relevant records were available, to show that petitioner commenced business only from February, 2001 and for the previous period petitioner was not liable to pay any arrears, it has been directed to pay the arrears. Out of Rs.1,50,000/-. the previous owner has made payment of Rs.1,25,000/- and he is ready to make the balance payment, but no opportunity was given. Instead, notice has been served. From the submissions made, it would be quite clear that the impugned notice was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,457/-and in default of payment, attachment proceedings under the ESI Act would follow. It is quite evident that opportunity was not given to the petitioner to place the records in order to substantiate his case. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner occupied the premises from February, 2001, it was not liable to pay any arrears, for which it is having sufficient evidence. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that opportunity should be given to the petitioner to place the records before the concerned authority, who in turn afford an opportunity to the petitioner and pass suitable orders thereon. The impugned notice issued by the second respondent is set aside. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that opportunity should be given to the petitioner to place the records before the concerned authority, who in turn afford an opportunity to the petitioner and pass suitable orders thereon. The impugned notice issued by the second respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to commence the enquiry thereby giving opportunity to the petitioner and take a correct decision accordingly. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WP.Mp.Nos.40784 and 40785 of 2005 are closed.