MANISH PITALE, J.

1. HEARD.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, is aggrieved by orders passed by the respondent-Authorities under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "ESI Act"), whereby the establishment run by the petitioner has been covered under the provisions of the ESI Act and the petitioner has been called upon to deposit contributions under the ESI Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of preparing and selling sweets and snacks in the City of Nagpur. On 02/06/2009 an Inspector of the respondent-Authority under the ESI Act conducted an inspection and prepared an inspection report, recording that eleven employees were working in the petitioner concern. On this basis, on 29/06/2009 the Assistant Director of the respondent-Authority sent a letter to the petitioner, requesting it to furnish details in the enclosed form as regards the employees working with the petitioner. It was stated that if the information was not provided, the respondent-Authorities would be under an apprehension that the petitioner was coverable under section 2(12) of the ESI Act. On 27/07/2009, the petitioner submitted its reply to the said letter and stated that there were only five persons working in the petitioner concern. On 19/05/2010, the respondent-Authorities sent a notice to the petitioner to produce all records relating to the proprietary concern and thereafter on 14/12/2010 the respondent-Authorities sent a communication to the petitioner on the subject of implementation of the ESI Act and registration of employees of the establishment of the petitioner under section 2(12) of the ESI Act. In the said communication, reference was made to the inspection carried out on 02/06/2009 and code number was allotted to the petitioner concern.

4. The respondent-Authorities carried out another visit and inspection on 05/01/2012, wherein it was recorded that there were three persons found to be working with the petitioner concern and on 12/01/2012, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner as to why it should not be prosecuted under the provisions of the ESI Act. Another inspection report dated 02/02/2012 recorded that there were seven persons found working in the petitioner-concern. On 10/06/2015, respondent No.1 sent a letter to the petitioner stating that contributions were payable from it under the ESI Act and that specific amounts were recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that it was being granted an opportunity to show cause against the determination of recovery of amounts specified in the said communication. On 09/07/2015, the petitioner sent a reply to the said communication and denied any liability under the provisions of the ESI Act. According to the petitioner, it was able to procure certain documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005, showing that the internal communications of the respondent-Authorities had recorded that show cause notice issued against the petitioner had been rendered time barred. Yet on 18/01/2016, impugned order was passed by respondent No.1 under section 45A of the ESI Act, demanding contribution from the petitioner for the period from December, 2010 to March, 2015, failing which recovery would be made under sections 45C to 45I of the ESI Act.

5. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 09/03/2016, challenging the said orders dated 14/12/2010, whereby registration code was alloted to the petitioner and order dated 18/01/2016 passed under section 45A of the ESI Act.

6. Mr. T. Mandlekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the impugned orders were wholly unsustainable because the inspection reports on record demonstrated that the respondent-Authorities never had any material on record to show that the petit