1 wp 4153.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4153 OF 2011 M/s Deogiri Nagari Sahkari Bank Ltd., Through the Chief Executive Officer, Artha Complex, Kesarsingh Purs, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus The Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Aurangabad. .. Respondent Shri M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Standing Counsel for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The proceedings U/Sec. 7-C were initiated against the petitioner and culminated vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2011. The same is assailed in the present petition. 2 wp 4153.11 3. Shri Bhokarikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a financial institution and a public body. It has scrupulously made the payment as required by law. The learned counsel submits that on the given date the representative of the petitioner could not remain present, as he was on leave, still the Commissioner decided the proceedings. The record could not be shown to the learned Commissioner as the representative was absent and the same has not been considered by the respondent and prays that the matter be remanded back. 4. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the contentions of the petitioner and contends that the proceedings would show that the representative of the petitioner use to remain present. He has submitted the required balance sheet as well as the list of employees and on many occasions he sought adjournments. He was also directed to submit the deposition report and thereafter he remained absent. The commissioner has rightly passed the order impugned. 5. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank dealing with public money. The proceedings shows that the petitioner had deputed its representative on each and every date of hearing. But the 3 wp 4153.11 said representative who was dealing with the matter was on leave from 02nd May, 2011 to 16th May, 2011. As such could not remain present on 10.05.2011 as was directed by the Commissioner and in absence of representative the Commissioner conducted the proceedings and passed the final order. As such, the proper opportunity could not be availed by the petitioner and could not put forth its case. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and custodian of public funds, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case before the Commissioner. 6. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner on 04th July, 2011. The Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner after giving the reasonable opportunity to the petitioner shall decide the proceedings U/Sec. 7-C afresh. 7. The rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, no costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11