ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1140 dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition), issued by the Assistant Director (Ins.I)-cum-Authorised Officer, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Namkum, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) whereby the said respondent has passed order under Section 45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the Act 1948”) directing the petitioner to pay the contribution amount of Rs. 14,81,560/- determined for the period from October, 2015 to August, 2019 within a period of 60 days from the date of the said order, failing which the same has been ordered to be recovered in terms with the provisions of Section 45-C to 45-I of the Act, 1948. Further prayer has been made for quashing notice of demand dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) issued by the Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Namkum, Ranchi (the respondent no. 5) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,89,977/- forthwith failing which, the same shall be recovered in terms with the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1948. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the prohibitory order as contained in letter no. 534 dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 5 whereby the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patratu Branch, Ramgarh has been directed to restrain and prohibit the petitioner till further order from receiving any amount/debt to the extent of Rs. 21,92,413/- due from it or may subsequently be due to the petitioner with reference to Account No. 11449562083 and 11449562094. It has further been directed to the said Branch Manager to handover forthwith the amount taken by it in respect of the said accounts/debts due and to freeze the account of the petitioner lying in any other branch of the said Bank. 2. Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C. to Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application under Section 75 of the Act, 1948 before the Employee’s Insurance Court against the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3. 3. 2. Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C. to Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application under Section 75 of the Act, 1948 before the Employee’s Insurance Court against the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring application challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 in terms with the provisions of Section 75 of the Act, 1948, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate/alternative/statutory recourse against the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3, as provided under law. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.