HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR SingleBench: Hon'bleShrl H.L. Dattu, CJ. WritPetitiOnNo.3392 QEI^S. Petjtloner Advanj Qerlikon Ltd., (A Limited Cpmpany jnGOrporated under Indian Companies Aqt), With the Registered Office at Block-D, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besent Road, Bombay. Plarit at Industrial area, Birgaon, Raipur- M.P. Vs. Resoondents 1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 7 Race CouFse Road, Indore. 2 Shri V.K. Dheman, S/o. Not known, EnforcementOffioer.ProvidentFund Office, Tatya Para Ghowk, Raipur - M.P. Petition underArticles 226/227 ofthe Gonstitution of India. ShriGoytam Bhaduri, counselfQrthepetitioner. Shri Pradeep Saksena, counsel for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passetf6it20'n Api-il, 2007) TRis matferarises underthe prQVisionsofEFnployees' Provident Fund & MiscellaneousProvislonsAct,1952(hereinafteFfocbrevity'theAot'). (2) , Inthis petition filed underArticle226 ofthe Constitutjon oflndia, the petitioner calls in question the correotness or otherwise of the oryer passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act in exeroise of his power under Section 7-A of the Aot quahtifying a sum of Rs.2,10,955/- as the amount payabie bythepetitioner-oompany. (3) Apart from other contentions, tbe primary ground ufged by learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent- aythority without affording reasonabi.e opporti-injty of hearing to the petitioner has.guantifiedtheliabilHy'underffieActand,therefoFe,itisstated;that,t!Teorder passed by the respQndeht-authonty is Fiot onlyarbitrary. but also in violation of :»• B8i Hliw a^: the principles of natyral justice. In supportof his contention, the leamed ooureel draws my attention to sub-Section (3) of Section 7-A of the Act. (4) . Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugnedorderpasseclbytherespondentauthorities; —. ., . (5) At the timeof hearing ofthe petition,. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, oounset for the petitioner would submit that ohe more opportunity may be afforded to the petitidneF to substantiate its defence and further submits that in order to proye its bona fjdes the petitioner would deposit the entire amount quantified byfherespondents, (6) Sub-Section (3) of Seotion 7-A of the Act specifioally states that before an order is passed under Section 7-A ofthe Act, the opposite party requires to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Perusal of the order passed by the respondent-authority would cleaFly show that opportunity was given to the petitioner not only to plead his defence but also to substantiate the same. However, the petitioner did not make use of the opportunity given to it. Therefore, this. is not.one of those oaseswhere an opportunity of hearing was not given to'the petitioner, but a case where opportunityof hearing was given, butwas not made use ofit bythe petitioner. Therefore, in principle, 1 eannot find fault with th'e impugned order, but in order to do substantial justtee to the parties, if the impugned order is set aside, subject to the condition; that the petitioner pays the entire quantified liability and a direction is issued to the Gompetent Authority under the Act to re-do the matter, no prejudtee would be oausedtothe respondents.The respondents' leamed counsel had noobjection to the suggestion made by me at the time of hearing of the petition. Accordinglythefollowing: , .. ORDER w.^. i) Petitionisdisposedof.lmpugnedorderissetaside. I;1-- ii) The respondent-authority is directed to give one more opportunityto fhe petitioner to substantiate its defence by issuing appropriate notioe to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accbrdance with law. -.. iii) The petitioner isdirected to depositthe amount quantified bytlie respondent-authority within two months' time from today, after deductingthe amount it hasalready deposited. . (8) With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Ordered accoFdingly. i Sd/-;. • \.^ ~~ ChiefJustice ; L, -J'^lte' 2 ?- B,i