Judgment : 1. M/s. Hotel New Prasanth Devi Chwok, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District is a proprietary concern. Smt. P. Veera Venkata Prasadam-the petitioner is Propritrix of the hotel. Her husband-Bala Venkata Reddy managed the hotel during his lifetime. She leased the hotel with effect from 1.4.1999 and subsequently she closed the hotel business in the year 2001. She moved out from Rajahmundry to Mahabubnagar for the reason of her second daughter securing a seat in S.P.S. Medical College, Mahaboobnagar. 2. The respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation (for brevity, “the Corporation”) filed PC No.93 of 2001 and PC No.299 of 2002 on the file of ESI-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 85 of the Employees “State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for non-payment of contributions for the period from 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2001 and 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001. 3. The petitioner filed EIC No.10 of 2004 on the file of ESI Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad under Section 75(l)(g) of the Act seeking declaration that she is not liable to pay any contribution to the Corporation. An interim order came to be passed by the Tribunal on 10.2.2004 subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.20,000/-and the matter is pending adjudication. The Corporation issued proceeding No.62-Q/27558-09/2005, dated 7.6.2006 for recovery of the arrears along with interest and proposed to execute the above said certificate by arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. She has been directed to appear before the Court on 26.6.2006. The Corporation also issued another notice on 21.6.2006 calling upon her to explain as to why an arrest warrant and attachment of the movable and immovable properties should not be resorted to for realization of the amount of Rs.2,29,689/-. She submitted an explanation. The Corporation issued notice dated 4.7.2006 calling upon her to pay ESI dues of Rs.1,29,800/-for the period from 20.7.1993 to 31.3.1999. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition assailing the notice dated 4.7.2006. 4. She submitted an explanation. The Corporation issued notice dated 4.7.2006 calling upon her to pay ESI dues of Rs.1,29,800/-for the period from 20.7.1993 to 31.3.1999. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition assailing the notice dated 4.7.2006. 4. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer Paras (3) and (4) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and they are thus: “(3) I submit that the respondent Corporation has filed Prosecution cases against the petitioner in PC No.93/2001, and PC No.299/2002 on the file of ESI-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad for the alleged offences under Section 85 of the ESI Act for non-payment of contributions for the period from 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2001 and for the period from 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001 to the Corporation and wherein I have received the notices and contested the matter. I submit that I have filed the EIC No.10/2004 on the file of the ESI Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-1,Hyderabad under Section 75(l) (g) of the ESI Act, 1940 to declare that I am not liable to pay any contribution to the Corporation and the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad by its order dated 10.2.2004 granted interim stay on a condition of depositing Rs.20,000/-and the matter is pending adjudication. (4) I submit that while the matter stood thus, the respondent Corporation has issued proceedings No.62-Q/27558-09/2005 dated 7.6.2006 for recovery of the arrears along with interest and proposed to execute the above certificate by arrest and imprisonment if I fail to pay the dues. The Corporation further directed me to appear before the Corporation on 26.6.2006 and to show-cause why I should not be committee to civil prison in execution of the said certificate. Thereafter the Corporation issued another notice dated 21.6.2006 to show-cause as to issue of warrant against me and also to attach movable and immovable properties belonging to me. In reply to the said proceedings, I have submitted a detailed explanation stating that I have already filed EIC No.10/2004 and wherein the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad granted interim stay and the stay is still in force and requested to drop all further proceedings. In spite of the detailed explanation given by me, the respondent Corporation issued impugned order dated 14.7.2006 to show-cause for warrant of arrest for non payment of outstanding ESI dues. In spite of the detailed explanation given by me, the respondent Corporation issued impugned order dated 14.7.2006 to show-cause for warrant of arrest for non payment of outstanding ESI dues. The action of the respondent in issuing the impugned order without following the provisions of Section 45-C to 1 of the ESI Act 1948 and the same is not legal and valid.” 5. Rule nisi came to be issued on 1.9.2006. An interim order came to be passed on the even date directing the respondent not to take any steps for the arrest of the petitioner or her detention in prison before proceeding to recover the dues from the petitioner establishment and thereafter from the movable or immovable property of the proprietor of the petitioner establishment and in that order. 6. The respondent filed counter and moved MVMP No.490 of 2009 to vacate the interim order dated 1.9.2006. 7. The counter of the respondent, in brief, is:-The petitioner has not exhausted all the available remedies before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Act. The petitioner hotel is covered under Section 2(12) of the Act with effect from 20.7.1993 and the respondent Corporation allotted Code No.52-10450-09. The Proprietor hotel submitted Employer’s Registration Form in Form No.1 on 22.7.1993. She confirmed employee strength as 10 with effect from 20.7.1993 and also confirmed that the grinder is used with the aid of power since the date of starting of the hotel. The Corporation issued a coverage intimation in Form C-11 bearing No.52-10450-09, dated 3.8.1993. The then Manager of the local office of the respondent Corporation issued letter dated 21.5.1998. But the Proprietor of the petitioner hotel refused to take delivery of the letter/notice. The unit once covered under the Act, continues to be covered as per Section 1(6) of the Act. The petitioner hotel is covered under the Act and intimation of coverage in Form C-11 was sent to the petitioner hotel under letter bearing No.52-10450-09, dated 3.8.1993. Since the petitioner hotel failed to comply with the various provisions of the Act, the respondent Corporation issued notice in Form C-18 (Ad hoc) dated 3.8.1996, 30.9.1996, 25.4.1997, 13.10.1999, 3.5.2001 and 15.1.2002 before determining the contribution under Section 45A of the Act. Since the petitioner hotel failed to comply with the various provisions of the Act, the respondent Corporation issued notice in Form C-18 (Ad hoc) dated 3.8.1996, 30.9.1996, 25.4.1997, 13.10.1999, 3.5.2001 and 15.1.2002 before determining the contribution under Section 45A of the Act. After giving sufficient opportunity to the employer/petitioner, an order under Section 45 of the Act came to be passed duly determining the contribution on ad hoc basis. The petitioner failed to pay the contributions for the period from 20.7.1993 to 30.9.1995, 1.10.1995 to 31.3.1996, 1.4.1996 to 30.9.1996, 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1999, 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2001 and 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001. The notice impugned in the writ petition is only a show-cause notice and therefore the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The respondent only intends to realize the dues in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the arrest of the petitioner for realization of the dues payable to the respondent Corporation can be resorted to only after exhausting all the available remedies against the establishment. Learned Counsel refers Section 45-C of the Act. he also plated reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in D.R. Venkatesh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad, 2004 (5) ALD 355 . 10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that Section 45-C stipulates three modes for recovery of the amounts due to the respondent Corporation and it is left to the Recovery Officer to adopt any of the three modes. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner has an effective efficacious alternative remedy by moving an appropriate application before the Court constituted under the Act. Indeed, the petitioner filed petition before the ESI Court assailing the earlier notices and there is no reason for her to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the arrears relatable to 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2001 and 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Dy. Tahsildar/Special Revenue Inspector (ESI), Recovery Cell, 2001 (4) ALD 96 (DB). 11. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Dy. Tahsildar/Special Revenue Inspector (ESI), Recovery Cell, 2001 (4) ALD 96 (DB). 11. I have gone through the notice impugned in the writ petition and the text of the notice reads as hereunder: “With reference to your letter dated 26.6.2006 on the above subject, I am to inform you that the Hon’ble E.I. Court, Hyderabad has granted stay for operation of this Office Orders dated 25.6.2001 and 19.4.2002 in Case No.10 of 2004. The said assessment orders pertaining to the period from 1.4.1999 to 30.9.2001. Since the E.I. Court stayed the operation of the said orders, no coercive action is being taken to recover the amount pertaining to the aforesaid period. However, as seen from this office records, you are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,27,800/-for the period from 20.7.1993 to 31.3.1999 arid the said period is not covered by any dispute in any Court of law. You are, therefore, advised to clear of the outstanding amount of dues forthwith failing which action to recover the same shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 45-C to 45-1 of the ESI Act, 1948.” 12. It is well settled that a Writ Court may not exercise its discretion in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show-cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction, vide the decision of Supreme Court in Simens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 AIR SCW 6380. 13. A plain reading of the above-referred notice does not give any room for doubt that it is only a show-cause notice. No final order has been passed, pursuant to the show-cause notice as on this day. The petitioner can as well submit her explanation to the show-cause notice and invite final order on merits. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file explanation to the notice dated 4.7.2006 within two weeks and the respondent Corporation, on receipt of the explanation has to pass final orders. No order as to costs.