DEEPAK VYAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) It is seen that the impugned order is dated October 28, 2003 and the notice is dated June 23, 2008 whereas the petition is filed on September 10, 2009. The recovery notice has been issued pursuant to the order dated October 28, 2003 which order has also been challenged in this petition. It is seen that there is inordinate delay and laches in filing the petition. No reasonable cause has been made out in the petition in respect of delay in filing the petition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated October 28, 2003, the petitioner had addressed a letter dated February 15, 2004 to the Government of India, Office of the Director General (Inspection) and Chief Labour Commissioner (C), New Delhi. As far as the order dated October 28, 2003 is concerned, the only remedy to the petitioner was to file a writ petition before this Court. By sending the letter dated February 15, 2004, it cannot be said that the petitioner had challenged the order dated October 28, 2003 before the proper forum. It is seen that even after a letter dated February 15, 2004 was sent to the petitioner, the petitioner has not bothered to follow up as to what was the action taken on the said letter. Thus, in fact only on the ground of delay, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the complaint was wrongly filed against him alleging that he is the proprietor of Shri Rana Enterprises situated at Jayran Nagar, Borivali (W). His case is that he is neither a proprietor nor a partner nor agent of the said enterprises and he has no concern in any manner with Rana Enterprises. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the matter be remanded back so that the petitioner has an opportunity to bring on record material to show that he is not connected with Rana Enterprises and some other person is connected with the said enterprises. However, looking to the fact that more than six years have elapsed since the order was passed and looking to the fact that the petitioner has not taken any step to challenge the order for a long period of six years, today I am not inclined to remand the matter or interfere in the order dated October 28, 2003.