Judgment :- Heard Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Jayakumari, who has taken notice for the respondent ESI Corporation 2. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the notices dated 11.11.2009 issued by the respondent Corporation. The said Notices have been issued under section 39 (5) of the ESI Act, 1948 asking for payment of interest on the delayed payment. 3. It is fairly submitted by Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner hotel was issued earlier a notice under section 45A of the ESI Act. They have already paid the contribution and there is no dues of any subscription. With reference to demand of interest payment, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the Section 77 (1A)(b) of the Act and wanted to contend that a proviso to the said Section provides for a limitation. Therefore, the petitioner is not bound to pay interest. Subsequently, he submits that the actual interest amount has not been calculated. 4. His arguments are not acceptable for entertaining the writ Petitions by this Court, as there is a remedy provided under section 75 of the ESI Act. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he should file an appropriate application before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act. Since there is valuable statutory remedy available and this Court under the very same Act is only made as an appellate authority under section 82, this Court is not inclined to admit these writ petitions. 5. This position of law has been upheld by the Supreme Court in ESI Corporation vs. C.C.Santhakumar reported in 2007 (2) LLJ 3 = 2007 (1) LLN 1 6. In the light of the same, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. Dismissal of these writ petitions will not prevent the petitioner from availing the remedy provided under section 75 of the ESI Act.