JUDGMENT 1. Heard Ms. Bangera, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and Mrs. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive notice. 3. Ms. Bangera, the learned Counsel, submits that the summary of the documents sought to be produced was already submitted before the E.S.I. Court. She, therefore, submits that this is not a case of springing surprises on the Respondent-Corporation. 4. Ms. Bangera submits that production of the above documents is vital to the Petitioners' case; therefore, the Court should have allowed such production. She submits that no prejudice would occasion the Respondent-Corporation and, in any case, such prejudice could always have been compensated by costs. 5. Ms. Bangera, on instructions from Mr. Pradip Gaonkar, the authorized signatory of the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner would pay costs of ? 75,000/- to the Respondent-Corporation if leave is granted to produce the documents. 6. Mrs. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Corporation, submits that challenge before the Court is to the Best Judgment Assessment made by the Corporation under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (for short, 'E.S.I. Act''). She submits that several opportunities were granted to the Petitioner to produce records and documents. However, the Petitioner failed to avail of the opportunities, and the E.S.I. Corporation was left with no alternative but to proceed under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act. 7. Mrs. Agni submitted the validity of the Best Judgment Assessment or the Order made under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act is required to be tested based on the failure of the Petitioner to produce records and documents at the appropriate time. She submits that the validity of the Best Judgment/Order cannot be examined based on documents that a party may wish to produce subsequently. She submits that, therefore, the view taken by the Court about such documents being irrelevant is correct and warrants no interference. She relies on the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2012, in a batch of E.S.I. Appeals including Appeal under E.S.I. No. 1 of 2008 (M/s. Landscape Developers vs. The Regional Director, E.S.I., Goa), in support of her contention. She submits that, therefore, the view taken by the Court about such documents being irrelevant is correct and warrants no interference. She relies on the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2012, in a batch of E.S.I. Appeals including Appeal under E.S.I. No. 1 of 2008 (M/s. Landscape Developers vs. The Regional Director, E.S.I., Goa), in support of her contention. She points out that even in this case, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of E.S.I. Corpn. vs. C. C. Santhakumar, 2007 (1) SCC 584 . 8. Rival contentions now fall for my determination. 9. In this case, there is a record that a chart relating to most of the documents now sought to be produced was produced earlier before the authorities. The issue as to whether such chart amounts to a summary or not can always be looked into by the E.S.I. Court at the appropriate stage. Besides, mere leave to produce such documents does not mean or imply that such documents are bound to be considered for deciding the validity of the action under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act. 10. Therefore, by leaving open, the contentions now raised by Mrs. Agni on behalf of the E.S.I. Corporation and no doubt subject to payment of costs leave can always be granted to the Petitioner to produce the documents/records before the E.S.I. Court. 11. The issue of their relevance, particularly when it comes to the challenge to the Best Judgment Assessment Order under Section 45-A, can be left open having regard to the decisions relied upon by Mrs. Agni. 12. Ms. Bangera submits that on behalf of the Petitioner, reliance will be placed on certain decisions that will support the Petitioner. The Court can consider all these matters even after leave is granted to produce additional documents/records. 13. Accordingly, subject to the Petitioner paying the Respondent-Corporation costs of ? 75,000/- within four weeks from today, without fail or seeking any extension, leave is granted to produce the additional documents/records. 14. However, it is once again clarified that to grant such leave does not mean that the Court will not go into the issue of the relevance of such documents, particularly while deciding the challenge to the action under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act. Therefore, all contentions of all parties on the issue of relevance are expressly left open. 14. However, it is once again clarified that to grant such leave does not mean that the Court will not go into the issue of the relevance of such documents, particularly while deciding the challenge to the action under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act. Therefore, all contentions of all parties on the issue of relevance are expressly left open. 15. If for any reason, the costs are not paid within four weeks from today, then this Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs of ? 25,000/-. 16. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside. Leave to produce documents/records is granted subject to the above terms and clarification. 17. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. 18. All concerned are to act based on an authenticated copy of this Order.