JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the order dated 05.07.2010 bearing No.KA Ni Ba-1/Baa Kaa Kaa/ Thanikhe/ 2009-10, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D. 2. The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 has initiated a false proceedings under Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has engaged the services of a minor. 3. In regard to the crime alleged, the Labour Officer relies upon a certificate stated to have been issued by the Medical Officer in terms of Annexure-R6, wherein the age of the minor employee is shown to be 13–14 years. On the basis of the said certificate of age, respondent No.1 has imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/-on the petitioner by way of the impugned order and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Shri Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the person who has issued the certificate of age does not satisfy the requirement of explanation to Rule 17(3) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1988, since under the said explanation the medical authority has to be a medical doctor not below the rank of Assistant Surgeon of a District or a regular doctor of equivalent rank employed in Employees’ State Insurance dispensaries or hospitals, since the person certifying annexure-R6 does not satisfy the above requirement, the certificate relied upon by respondent No.1 cannot be countenanced in law, enquiry is bad in law therefore, the penalty imposed is not sustainable, the order dated 05.07.2010 has to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondents would submit that apart from annexure-R6, in terms of annexure-R5 there is self declaration by the minor employee, a representative of the petitioner has also signed the declaration, wherein the age of the minor employee is shown to be 13 years. Therefore, a minor below the age of 14 years having been employed by the petitioner, therefore is violation of Section 3 of the Act. 6. Heard Shri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the papers. 7. Therefore, a minor below the age of 14 years having been employed by the petitioner, therefore is violation of Section 3 of the Act. 6. Heard Shri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the papers. 7. The moot question in the present matter would be as to when there are no documents or records available to determine the age in what manner would be a dispute as to age of a minor employee be required to be determined. In this regard, Section 10 of the Act, which relates to dispute as to age mandates that the same is to be so determined by the prescribed medical authority to whom the matter is referred by the Inspector for decision. The prescribed medical authority for certification of the age as per Rule 17 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1988, wherein it is categorically stated that the medical authority shall be one who is not below the rank of Assistant Surgeon of a District or a regular doctor of equivalent rank employed in Employees’ State Insurance dispensaries or hospitals. 8. The certificate at annexure-R6 has not been so issued by a person not below the rank of Assistant Surgeon of a District or a regular doctor of equivalent rank employed in Employees’ State Insurance dispensaries or hospitals. Such being the case, the said certificate not being issued by the prescribed authority could not have been used of by the Inspector for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. The very foundation of the enquiry being without any basis, the order dated 05.07.2010 cannot stand. In view of the same, the petition is allowed and the order dated 05.07.2010 bearing No.KA Ni Ba-1/Baa Kaa Kaa/Thanikhe/2009-10, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed.