Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. As only a short point is involved with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
The main ground of challenge to the Scheme, viz. Company Law Settlement Scheme, 2000, urged by counsel for the petitioner, is that it enabled the respondent authorities to pass orders in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel had urged that the authorities were not obliged to give any reasons for the orders being passed. Moreover, he submitted, that the notification issued prescribed fixed amounts that are payable for different periods of delay in furnishing the documents, which obviated the need for giving of reasons.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has sought instructions. He allays the apprehension of the petitioner in this regard. Counsel for the respondents had submitted that respondents have amended the prescribed proforma of the certificate granting immunity from penalty. As a result of amendment in the prescribed proforma, reasons are now to be given for condoning the delay and granting immunity in the certificate itself. It may be noted that the statutory provision, i.e. Section 637 sub-section (b)(2) itself contemplates giving of reasons.
3. In view of this position, learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek any further relief in the matter.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
A copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for the parties.