wégii $M€$§ E K IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. 4-3 No. 697—? I201o g \w WRIT *PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER PETITIONER / M/s N1tin Tile Industries, Mundle 9AAm Compound Jarhabhatta Bllaspur éréanmémw wxmw \‘M ..... '. .....Z $33 '..I ....... Ah ::::uga:::tp::n:::r:l :tla::(CA:nt Mahadev fa::::l:1:t/a(i Mundle we VERSUS RESPONDENTS Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office: Raipur (C.G.) ¢ § H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) NO 6925 OF 2010 M/s. Nitin Tile industries Versus‘ Petitioner Rt esponden A Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the peiitidnér does not want to press this petition at this stage, except that the petitioner may be permitted to file review petition under the provisions of Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel further submits that there seems to be some delay, as the order was signed on 26.04.2010 and the same was dispatched on 04.062010. Learned counsel appearing for other side has no objection. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated liberty. However, it is made clear that if the review petition is filed by the petitioner, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may consider the above‘stated fact, as stated by the counsel, in accordance with law. ashok Sdl- .V‘ Satish K. Agnihotn Judge