JUDGMENT : S.G. Chattopadhyay, J Appellant has challenged the order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 85 of 2015. [2] Factual background of the case is as under: Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act which is engaged in plantation, production and sale of tea. It runs a tea estate in Tripura in the name of Murticherra Tea Estate at Kailashahar in Unakoti District in an area of 2119 acres of land. [3] For regulating the conditions of labour and assuring reasonable amenities including housing accommodation for various plantation workers within the State, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 43 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (“the said Act” hereunder) framed Tripura Plantation Labour Rules, 1954 (“the said rules” hereunder). Under Rule 54 of the said rules, State Government constituted an Advisory Board for consultation in regard to matters connected with housing accommodation for plantation workers. The formation of the said Advisory Board was notified by the respondent vide Notification No.F.22(63)-LAB/ENF/TE/RATION/10/125-35 dated 04.01.2012 with immediate effect. As per the said notification, the Advisory Board consisted of, among others, three employers? representatives namely Anjan Kumar Das, Chairman of the Tripura Chapter of Tea Association of India (TAI), P.K. Sarkar, Secretary to the said organization (TAI) and the Managing Director of Tripura Tea Development Corporation (TTDC). [4] Pursuant to the recommendation of the said Advisory Board, the respondent vide Notification No. No.F.22(63)-LAB/ENF/TE/RATION/2010/1869-1929 dated 21st March, 2012 approved the standards and specifications of houses for the workers engaged in various tea estates across the State. [5] In this backdrop of circumstances, the appellant as original petitioner filed said W.P. (C) No. 85 of 2015 challenging the formation of the Advisory Board and the standards and specifications of housing accommodation for tea plantation workers which was approved by the said Advisory Board and notified by the respondent by the said notification dated 21.03.2012. In the writ petition, appellant challenged the formation of the Advisory Board on the ground that its composition did not conform to of the said rules. The notification dated 21.03.2012 with regard to approval of the housing scheme for tea plantation workers was challenged on the ground that employers’ representatives were never informed about the schedule of the meeting of the Advisory Board in which the said housing scheme for tea plantation workers was recommended by the Advisory Board. The notification dated 21.03.2012 with regard to approval of the housing scheme for tea plantation workers was challenged on the ground that employers’ representatives were never informed about the schedule of the meeting of the Advisory Board in which the said housing scheme for tea plantation workers was recommended by the Advisory Board. [6] By means of filing the said writ petition, petitioner sought for the following relieves: “(1) Issue rule asking the Respondents as to why the notification dated 21.03.2012 (Annexure-2) should not be declared bad in law for not being issued following the requirements of Rule 54 of the Tripura Labour Plantation Rules 1954, and accordingly quashed. (2) Issue Rule asking the Respondents as to why the Hon’ble Court would not direct the Respondent to constitute the “Advisory Board” strictly following the prescriptions of Rule 54 of the Rules for formulating the specifications of the housing scheme. (3) After hearing the parties make the Rule in terms of the above 1 and 2 absolute. (4) In the mean time pass appropriate orders to suspend the operation of the notification (Annexure-2). (5) Pass any other orders as may be considered proper for ends of justice.” [7] Respondent filed counter affidavit contending that Sri Anjan Kr. Das, President of Tea Association of India (TAI) in its Tripura chapter and its Secretary, Sri P.K. Sarkar were included in the Advisory Board constituted under Rule 54 of the said Rules as members with their consent because both of them were present in the tripartite meeting held on 28.11.2011 in which it was decided that the Advisory Board under Rule 54 of the said Rules would be constituted and said Anjan Kr. Das and P.K. Sarkar would be the employers’ representative in the board. Consequently, the formation of the Advisory Board was notified by the State Government on 04.01.2012. Both of the aforesaid employers’ representatives also participated in the subsequent tripartite meeting held on 08.12.2011 in which it was decided that the model house plan would be prepared by the R.D. Department of the State Government which would be placed for approval before the Advisory Board to be constituted and notified by the State Government. Accordingly, after formation of the Advisory Board vide notification dated 04.01.2012, meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 24.01.2012 in which the Advisory Board recommended the housing scheme for the tea plantation workers. Accordingly, after formation of the Advisory Board vide notification dated 04.01.2012, meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 24.01.2012 in which the Advisory Board recommended the housing scheme for the tea plantation workers. Respondent, however, pleaded that said Anjan Kr. Das and P.K. Sarkar were not present in the meeting held on 24.01.2012 when the housing scheme was finalized. According to the respondent, notice of the meeting was dispatched to the said employers’ representatives but they neither participated nor made any communication with regard to their inability to attend the meeting. [8] Learned Single Judge held that there was no defect in the formation of the Advisory Board which was duly notified by the State Government by notification dated 04.01.2012 and the said notification was also duly published in the Official Gazette. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that there was no representation of the employers in the meeting of the Advisory Board held on 24.01.2012 when the housing scheme for the tea garden workers was finalized, the learned Single Judge held that the documents produced by the respondent indicated that Mr. P.K. Sarkar, one of the employers’ representatives was duly intimated about the schedule of the meeting and since among the three employers’ representatives at least one was proved to be served with notice of the meeting the business transactions conducted by the Advisory Board cannot stand annulled. The relevant extract of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: “[2] In substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that the composition of the Advisory Board notified by the State Government, Department of Labour dt.4th January, 2012 is not in conformity in terms of Rule 55 of the Tripura Plantations Labour Rules, 1954 (hereinafter Rules, 1954) and all actions in furtherance thereof taken by the Advisory Board and the business transactions are per se bad in law since the composition of the Advisory Board is not as per mandated by law. [3] During the course of arguments counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon that one of the employer’s representative Sri P.K. Sarkar, the then Secretary & Labour Advisor, TAI, Tripura Branch, Agartala and member of the Advisory Board under notification dt.4th January, 2012 was never informed about the day on which the meeting was to be held and any business transactions or decisions of the Board cannot be made effective and binding upon him. [4] Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the notification dt.4th January, 2012 which has been published in gazette by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Rule 54 of the Tripura Plantations Labour Rules, 1954 constituting the Advisory Board dt.4th January, 2012 is strictly in terms of the composition of the Advisory Board as being provided under Rule 55 of the Rules, 1954 which are reproduced hereunder: “54. CONSTITUTION OF ADVISORY BOARD.— The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette constitute an Advisory Board for consultation in regard to matters connected with housing. 55. Composition of Advisory Board— (1) The Advisory Board shall consist of :- (i) the secretary to the State Government in the Department concerned, who shall be the Chairman of the Board; (ii) two officials to be nominated by the State Government; and (iii) three representatives each of the employers and workers nominated in consultation with the interests concerned. 55. Composition of Advisory Board— (1) The Advisory Board shall consist of :- (i) the secretary to the State Government in the Department concerned, who shall be the Chairman of the Board; (ii) two officials to be nominated by the State Government; and (iii) three representatives each of the employers and workers nominated in consultation with the interests concerned. (2) No act or proceedings of the Advisory Board shall be invalid on the ground of any defect in the constitution of, of any vacancy in, the Board.” [5] It may further be noticed that in the composition of the Advisory Board, apart from the officials of the State Government as referred to under Rule 55 and clause (iii) in particular there has to be three representatives each from the employers and workers nominated in consultation with the interests concerned and the notification dt.4th January, 2012 clearly indicates the representative of an employer and workers nominated in consultation with the interests concerned and there appears no defect either in the constitution of the Advisory Board or its composition and in my view it has been constituted by the Government in exercise of power under Rule 54 under its notification dt.4th January, 2012 which has been duly gazetted as per the composition of the Advisory Board envisaged u/R 55 and a presumption has to be drawn that on publication of notification in the official gazette its an information to the general public including the members nominated of the Advisory Board and for their participation in the meeting for the purpose for which the business has to be transacted by them. [6] The further submission made by the petitioner about holding of the meeting of the Advisory Board without giving a proper notice to one of its member/employer’s representative, Sri P. K. Sarkar in particular, although there is no pleadings on record but still in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, a copy of the meeting notice, Annexure-k dt.17th January, 2012 inviting all the members of the Advisory Board for finalization of the model housing of the tea workers of the tea estates to be held on 24th January, 2012 which was earlier scheduled to be held at 4.00 P.M but by subsequent notice dt.19th January, 2012 it was rescheduled to be held at 12 noon on 24th January, 2012 and from the peon book who took the notice of the meeting to be served upon all the members of the Advisory Board has been placed on record. The name of the member, Sri P K. Sarkar has been indicated intimating him about the time and day of the meeting to support that he was intimated of the schedule meeting. [7] On the basis of the material/official documents on record what being contended by the petitioner certainly is a disputed questions which is not possible for this court to look into, but at the same time, this court would like to record that there are three representatives of the employer who are the members of the Advisory Board and even if one amongst them as contended by the petitioner if served but if still recused to appear and participate in the meeting that will not hold the composition of the Advisory Board to be defective to hold that all the business transactions executed by the Advisory Board stands annulled as prayed for.” [9] Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 06 of 2019. During the pendency of the writ appeal, appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal. The said appeal was accordingly disposed of by this Court by the following order: “Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To set aside the Order of the Ld. During the pendency of the writ appeal, appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal. The said appeal was accordingly disposed of by this Court by the following order: “Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To set aside the Order of the Ld. Single Judge passed on 13.09.2018; (ii) Allow the writ appeal and pass necessary order setting aside the impugned Notification No.F.22(63)-LAB/ENT/TE/RATION/2010/1869-1929, dated 21st March, 2012, as that is issued without having the proper representation from the employers side and without giving the opportunity to the employer representatives of the impugned Advisory Board.” After the matter was heard for some time, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal, reserving liberty to file afresh, complete in all respect, on the same and subsequent cause of action, in accordance with law. Permission granted with liberty. Ordered accordingly. Since the appellant-petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this Court, limitation shall not come in the way if the appeal is preferred within next four weeks. The appeal stands disposed of as having been withdrawn with liberty. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.” [10] Thereafter, by filing the present appeal, appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the following grounds: (i) Formation of the board was defective because employers’ representatives were never intimated about their inclusion in the said Advisory Board. (ii) Since the Advisory Board was not formed in conformity with the statutory provisions, the actions taken by the board were illegal. (iii) Learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the respondent could not adduce any proof of delivery of the letter intimating the employers’ representatives about the schedule of the meeting held on 24.01.2012 in which the housing scheme was finalized. [11] Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant along with Ms. P. Sen, learned advocate. Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondent. [12] Counsel of the appellant contends that formation of the Advisory Board was absolutely illegal since no prior consultation was held with the employers’ representatives for inclusion of their names in the Advisory Board. P. Sen, learned advocate. Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondent. [12] Counsel of the appellant contends that formation of the Advisory Board was absolutely illegal since no prior consultation was held with the employers’ representatives for inclusion of their names in the Advisory Board. Counsel further contends that the recommendation of the Board with regard to the standards and specifications of the housing scheme for tea garden workers was also illegal because no representative of the employers was present in the said meeting held on 24.01.2012 and the finding of the learned Single Judge that one of the employers’ representatives was served with the notice of the meeting but he refused to participate in the said meeting was unfounded because there was no proof of service of notice on any of the representatives of the employers. Counsel, therefore, urges for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. [13] Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A on the other hand contends that order of the learned Single Judge is well founded which calls for no interference in appeal. [14] Pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2020, respondent has produced the official records relating to this matter before this court in sealed cover. The despatch register for the period from 16.09.2011 to 25.04.2012 under entry No.314-21 dated 17.01.2012 would show that notice of meeting scheduled on 24.01.2012 was despatched vide No. 1(2)-LC/CON/2011 in the name of Anjan Das. Similarly, under serial No.413 dated 19.01.2012 meeting notice for the meeting scheduled on 24.01.2012 in the name of P.K. Sarkar is also shown to have been despatched vide No.22(63)-LAB/ENF/TE/RATION/2010. Entries under serial No.413 however contains several interpolations. Moreover, there is no proof of delivery of such meeting notice on said Anjan Kr. Das and P.K. Sarkar. No minutes of the meeting signed by the said representatives of the employers or any other proof of attendance of the said representatives of the employers in the meeting held on 24.01.2012 has been produced on behalf of the respondent. [15] In so far as the challenge of the appellant to the constitution of Advisory Board is concerned, Rule 54 of the said Rules provides under: “54. [15] In so far as the challenge of the appellant to the constitution of Advisory Board is concerned, Rule 54 of the said Rules provides under: “54. CONSTITUTION OF ADVISORY BOARD - The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette constitute an Advisory Board for consultation in regard to matters connected with housing.” [16] It emerges from the record that the State Government vide notification No.F.22(63)-LAB/ENF/TE/RATION/10/125-35 dated 04.01.2012 constituted the said Advisory Board for consultation with regard to the matters connected with housing of the plantation workers in the State. The said notification reads as under: “No.F.22(63)-LAB/ENF/TE/RATION/10/125-35 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA LABOUR DEPARTMENT Dated, Agartala, the 4th January, 2012 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule-54 of the Tripura Plantation Labour Rule, 1954, the State Government hereby constitutes an Advisory Board to advise it in regard to standards and specifications of houses meant for plantation workers for approval of the State Government in pursuance of the provision of Rule-45 of the said Rule with the following Chairman and members:- 1. Secretary, Labour. Chairman 2. Labour Commissioner, Labour Directorate, Secretary. Member Official Persons 1. Inspector of Factories, Factories & Boilers Organization Member 2. Executive Engineer, R.D. Department, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala Member Employers Representative 1. Sri Anjan Kr. Das, Chairman TTAI, Officer Quarter Lane, Agartala Member 2. Sri P.K. Sarkar, Secretary & Labour Advisor, TAI, Tripura Branch, Agartala Member 3. The Managing Director, TTDC, Agartala Pt. Nehru Complex (Gurkhabasti), Agartala. Member Employees Representative 1. Sri Sudhanmoy Majumder, Tripura Tea Workers Union Member 2. Sri Kanu Ghosh, Secretary, Tripura Tea Workers Union, C/O CITU Office, Agartala Member 3. Sri Niorde Baran Das, Secretary General, Tripura Cha Mazdoor Union, Krishnanagar, Nutan Palli Road, Agartala Member The term of the Advisory Board shall be 3(three) years from the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette or until further order. This Notification shall take immediate effect. (K. Jamatia) Under Secretary Government of Tripura” [17] Rule 55(1) of the said Rules provides composition of Advisory Board constituted under Rule 54 which is as under: “55. This Notification shall take immediate effect. (K. Jamatia) Under Secretary Government of Tripura” [17] Rule 55(1) of the said Rules provides composition of Advisory Board constituted under Rule 54 which is as under: “55. COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY BOARD-(1) The Advisory Board shall consist of:- (i) the secretary to the State Government in the Department concerned, who shall be the Chairman of the Board; (ii) Two officials to be nominated by the State Government; and (iii) three representatives each of the employers and workers nominated in consultation with the interests concerned.” [18] It would emerge from the notification dated 04.01.2012 that there is no conflict between Rule 55 and the notification dated 04.01.2012 of the State Government whereby the said Advisory Board was constituted. It would appear from the composition of the Board that the Advisory Board consists of three representatives of the employers and three of the workers and as such the notification composing the Advisory Board cannot be faulted with. Even if there is any defect in the constitution of the Advisory Board, its actions and proceedings cannot be invalidated for any defect in the constitution of the Board or any vacancy in the board which has been provided under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 55 of the said Rules which reads as under: “55(2). No act or proceedings of the Advisory Board shall be invalid on the ground of any defect in the constitution of, or any vacancy in, the Board.” [19] In so far as the challenge of the appellant to the validity of the recommendation of the Advisory Board in respect of the housing scheme is concerned, the appellant as it appears from the record, has challenged the validity of the meeting on the ground that no meeting notice was served on the employers’ representatives intimating them about the schedule of the meeting which was held on 24.01.2012 and the finding of the learned Single Judge that notice was served on one of the representatives of the employers who refused to attend the meeting cannot stand because there is no proof of delivery of notice on any of the employers’ representatives. [20] Procedure relating to the meetings of Advisory Board is laid down under Rule 60 to 66 in Chapter IV of the said Rules. Rule 62 deals with notice of meetings which reads as under: “62. [20] Procedure relating to the meetings of Advisory Board is laid down under Rule 60 to 66 in Chapter IV of the said Rules. Rule 62 deals with notice of meetings which reads as under: “62. NOTICE OF MEETINGS :-(1) Notice shall be given to every member of the time and place fixed for each ordinary meeting at least fifteen days before such meeting and each member shall be furnished with a list of business to be transacted at the meeting. Provided that, when an emergent meeting is called by the Chairman, a notice giving such reasonable time as he may consider necessary, shall be deemed sufficient. (2) No business which is not in the list shall be considered at a meeting without the permission of the Chairman.” [21] From a plain reading of Rule 62 it would appear that service of notice of meetings of the Advisory Board on every member at least 15 days before such meeting along with list of business is compulsory unless an emergent meeting is called by the Chairman in which case a notice giving such reasonable time as the Chairman may consider necessary shall be sufficient. [22] Situated thus, the challenge of the appellant with regard to validity of the recommendations made by Advisory Board as regards the standards and specifications of houses for tea garden labourers on the ground that no notice of the meeting dated 24.01.2012 of the said Advisory Board was served on any of the representatives of the employers appears to be genuine. [23] For the above reasons, we are unable to accept the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to the validity of the recommendations made by the Advisory Board and as such the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside with a direction to the respondent to initiate fresh action to make housing scheme for the tea garden workers in the State in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and rules. The files of the Administrative Department (respondent) be returned forthwith through its counsel. In terms of the above, the writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.