M/S Shri Ashutosh Structures PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court disposed of the petition at the motion stage. The Court directed Respondent No. 2, the Regional P.F. Commissioner-II, to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner for a name change. The Court further stipulated that if required, Respondent No. 2 could call for additional documents from the petitioner, who would be obliged to supply them. Respondent No. 2 was instructed to take a decision on the representation at the earliest, preferably within 45 days. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The reasoning was based on facilitating the administrative process for the petitioner to get their records updated, without delving into the validity of the name change itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shri Ashutosh Structures Pvt. Ltd. (formerly M/s. Ashutosh Engineering Industries), sought a direction from the High Court to change its name in the records of Respondent No. 2, the Regional P.F. Commissioner-II. The petitioner stated that its firm name had been changed and updated in various government documents, including MSME, factory license, PSIC, CSPDCL, and GST. However, their representation to Respondent No. 2 for a similar name change remained pending without any decision. The petitioner argued that the previous firm, M/s. Ashutosh Engineering Company, no longer existed. Respondent No. 2 opposed, stating they were not informed of the name change but agreed to consider the representation if all documents were submitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation for a name change in their records, considering the petitioner's argument that the name change has been effected in other government departments and the previous entity no longer exists. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning administrative action and compliance). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that their firm's name had been changed and updated in various official documents, and their representation to Respondent No. 2 was pending. They sought a direction for Respondent No. 2 to decide this representation promptly. Respondent No. 2's Argument: Respondent No. 2 argued that they were not initially informed about the name change. However, they stated that they would consider the representation if all necessary documents were submitted, and would then take a decision.