72. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5074/2011 & CM No.10273/2011 (for stay). M/S HABSONS JOBSUP LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Azad & Ms. Aprajita, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. S. Singh, Mr. Nipun Bakhi & Mr. Rajiv Misra, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 20.07.2011 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24th / 28th June, 2011 suspending for a period of 30 days the Registration Certificate issued to the petitioner. The Certificate was issued under the Emigration Act, 1983 and permitted the petitioner to recruit workers for overseas employment. The petitioner in the petition itself admits that the said order is appealable under Section 23 of the Act. It is however contended that the appeal is not an efficacious alternative remedy owing to the urgency. It is contended that the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia has published a Notice dated 13th July, 1/- 2011 informing that a delegation of Ministry of Health is scheduled to arrive in India by 14th September, 2011 for recruiting Consultants, Specialists and Resident Doctors to work in various hospitals and Health Centers in Saudi Arabia. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being prevented from participating in the aforesaid recruitment by the Embassy of Saudi Arabia. 2. Ld. ASG appearing on advance notice has contended that the period of suspension is to come to an end on 27th July, 2011 and the present petition has been preferred after nearly three weeks of the order and is as such infructuous now. It is also contended that in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal, the petition ought not to be entertained. Attention is invited to Section 14(2) of the Act whereunder the respondents are entitled to suspend operation of the Certificate without hearing but for a period not exceeding 30 days. It is contended that the notice given to the petitioner in the order dated 24th /28th June, 2011 is to show cause against cancellation and not to show cause against extension of suspension; that thus the fears expressed by the counsel for the petitioner of extension of suspension are misplaced. 2/- 3. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that reply to the show cause notice has been filed but no decision thereon is being taken, to keep the petitioner under suspension and thereby prevent the petitioner from carrying on business. It is contended that earlier also a notice dated 25th December, 2010 on the same lines as the order dated 24th/ 28th June, 2011 was given but no decision was taken thereon and on the contrary the petitioner was suddenly placed under suspension. 4. Ld. ASG has stated that the decision in pursuance to the show cause notice shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act within two weeks and hearing as sought by the petitioner shall be given on 27th July, 2011 at 1500 hours. 5. In view of the aforesaid, need is not felt to entertain this petition since the petitioner in the next seven days is not required to take any steps for recruitment as aforesaid. Binding the respondents to their statement aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner if remains aggrieved from the decision so taken by the respondents, shall have remedies in law. No order as to costs. 3/- CM No.10304/2011 (for exemption). Allowed, subject to just exceptions. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J JULY 20, 2011 pp.. 4/-