ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties for final disposal. 2. Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the whole proceeding against the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. He further submitted that moreover, orders have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 3. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, denied and disputed such submissions and justified the actions of the Respondents concerned. 4. According to the Respondents, an inspection survey was done In the Establishment of the Petitioner on 23.9.2002, whereas according to the Petitioner, no inspection was done and it was a table work. It is further submitted that no such inspection was done in presence of the Petitioner or its representative. Otherwise, the signature should have been obtained by the Respondents. 5. It may be noted that Respondent has not stated anything as to why the signature of the Petitioner or its representative was not obtained on the purported inspection report. It is also not stated that the Petitioner or its representative refused to put signature on it. 6. Further, according to the Respondents, a notice regarding the coverage of the Establishment was sent to the Petitioner on 26.11.2002 by registered post, but nothing has been brought on record to show that it was actually sent by registered post. And then, it is not known why the purported notice of demand was sent after about five years i.e., on 20.6.2007. According to the Respondents, such notice was also sent by registered post, but nothing has been brought on record to show that it was sent by registered post. Then, an order dated 17.8.2007 was passed under Section 45(A) of the ESI Act for realization of the demand. 7. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this Court has no option than to quash the entire proceeding. Remitting the matter after eight years from the purported inspection, would be a futile exercise. However, this order will not prevent the Respondents if they wish to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Agrawal submitted that some amount has been recovered from the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the Petitioner. If that be so, Respondent Nos. However, this order will not prevent the Respondents if they wish to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Agrawal submitted that some amount has been recovered from the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the Petitioner. If that be so, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to return it to the Petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, such amount shall also carry simple interest @ 7% per annum recoverable from the erring officers. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. However, no cost. Writ petition allowed.