IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1066 of 2007 Nainital Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Nainital …Petitioner Versus The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Kan and others …Respondents Present : Mr. J. C. Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. C.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. J.C.Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.M.Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. C.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner is a cooperative society, which according to the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, comes under the purview of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (from hereinafter referred to as “Act”). Consequently, a demand of Rs.1,68,705/- as contribution under the Act vide notice dated 25.10.1999 has been made from the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, has stated that he moved an application for exemption under Section 90 of the Act before the concerned authority. Section 90 of the Act reads as under : “90. Exemption of factories or establishments belonging to Government or any local authority.- The appropriate Government may, [after consultation with the Corporation,] by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any factory or establishment belonging to factory or establishment are otherwise in receipt of 2 benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act.” 3. The fact that such an application has been moved by him for exemption, is admitted by the petitioner. In case such an application has been filed by the petitioner which is pending before the concerned authority, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authority in accordance with law within three months from today, for which the petitioner shall make suitable representation. 4. The petitioner though seeks protection from the respondents and prays that till the disposal of his application before concerned authorities, no coercive measure be taken by the respondents. Before this Court could decide on such a relief to the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.3 raised an apprehension that interference by this Court may not be for an indefinite period, as in the event of the said application not being decided by the concerned authorities respondents would be restrained from taking any action, which is provided by the statute. Moreover, the authority, who is to grant the exemption to the petitioner, is not a party before this Court. Hence, no direction is given to the said authority to decide the application of the petitioner. Though it is hoped and expected that in case the petitioner moves an application for expeditious disposal of his application, the same shall be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law, at the earliest. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.12.2011 Kuldeep