LML LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated July 30, 2004 and August 9, 2004 (Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition).

(2.) We have perused the impugned orders. These orders have only asked the petitioner to produce certain documents. In our opinion, these notices do not amount to any adverse order against the petitioner. Hence the petition is premature. Moreover, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he has an alternative remedy to approach the E. I. Court under Section 75 of the E. S. I. Act. In Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467 : 2004 (3) SCC 440, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the High Court of entertaining writ petitions against a show cause notice.

(3.) The writ petition is premature and is dismissed at this stage.