JUDGMENT : Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. I.A. No. 4537 of 2013 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 249 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard the Counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay, we, therefore, condone the delay in preferring the present L.P.A. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 4537 of 2013 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 227 of 2013 With I.A. No. 4538 of 2013 With I.A. No. 4539 of 2013 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1407 of 2011 dated 25.9.2012, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the present appellant dated 14.1.2011, which is a demand notice or recovery notice of the amount payable under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Act, 1948'). Having heard the Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present appellant is the original respondent in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1407 of 2011. The respondent had preferred a writ petition challenging the demand notice dated 14.1.2011, which was in pursuance to the order passed by this appellant dated 24.8.2010 for recovery of the amount at Rs. 1,18,676/- under the ESI Act, 1948. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the respondent. 2. It appears that the present appellant had given notice to the respondent dated 10.8.2007. The respondent appeared before the ESI authority and gave application on 23.8.2007 for adjournment and for taking further instructions. This application was never rejected by this appellant. No further hearing was given by the appellants to the respondent after 23.8.2007 and straightway an order was passed on 24.8.2010 i.e. approximately after three years and on the basis of the said order, demand notice was issued on 14.1.2011 for the recovery of the amount at Rs. 1,18,676/-. 3. It appears that the demand notice is based upon the order dated 24.8.2010, which is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. No reasons have been assigned in the said order. 1,18,676/-. 3. It appears that the demand notice is based upon the order dated 24.8.2010, which is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. No reasons have been assigned in the said order. The said order is thoroughly a non-speaking order. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the respondent and unilateral and ex-parte decision has been taken by this appellant. 4. It ought to have been kept in mind by the appellant that adequate and fair opportunity ought to have been given by the appellants. The notice is dated 10.8.2007. The respondent appeared and gave the application on 23.8.2007 for adjournment. This application was never rejected. The appellants had passed an order dated 24.8.2010 i.e. after approximately three years. During these three years period, the appellants could have given one more chance to the respondent for hearing. 5. The Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the efficacious alternative remedy is available under section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948 and therefore, the writ petition ought to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge and has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in (2005) (2) LLJ 1143 and also upon the another decision reported in Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s. F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 625 . The aforesaid contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that whenever the decision is taken by the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India -appellant ought to have followed the principles of natural justice, especially, when such type of notices are decided under the ESI Act, 1948. In this fact, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the impugned order dated 24.8.2010, which is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition and which is the very basis of the notice of demand issued by the appellants dated 14.1.2011, is a non-speaking order. These two facts make the present case different from the aforesaid two decided cases. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this L.P.A. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Nonetheless, we, hereby, direct the respondent to remain present on 25th September, 2014 between 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon before the Assistant Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, ESIC Model Hospital, at Namkum, Ranchi. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this L.P.A. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Nonetheless, we, hereby, direct the respondent to remain present on 25th September, 2014 between 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon before the Assistant Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, ESIC Model Hospital, at Namkum, Ranchi. The respondent shall present his reply with all necessary documents and the respondent shall co-operate in the hearing and me officers of the appellants shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournments, and the appellants will decide the notice dated 10.8.2007, which is at Annexure-3 to the writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 1407 of 2011 in accordance with law. Both these Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of in view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal.