1 ^'^7 i>3y ®~z? BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE PETITIONER: W.P. No.%'1.>&/2005 M/S Panchsheel Engineering works, 8-A,Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur, through the Proprietor S.Murgesh Soni. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: <1 ...^v' ^y\ v<.^y ^s^^ o '.••^"•\^vy /^^y / 2 /3 The Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Goyt. of India through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Raipur (C.G) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Compliance. Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, Regional Office, Raipur [C.G] Recovery Officer, E.P.F Act.1952, Chhattisgarh ,Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITjJnON OF INDIA WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION XI-HC-22 3TI^T.?H' R-fi+sn^T giiiffigfscT gn-M'u^ ct^s> ^<s ;<°- •7 3ST •^l<11ct<l, BTll'M'Ko, Islfliuy WIR'II SflWER^.K)p.^.^.^ If^ 311^1 ^((TWtrfStl' Cfcll Heard Shri Ajay D'wivedi, The instant petition has b4' certificate dated 25-2-2005 'ssu^' directed to recover an amount of ffs. The case of the pefitionerl \ respondents No.1 and 2 for reay 1952 upon WHiQp the cods ^ r-7i, I iiersaKSf. Tn£ p5L!LiOn6! QStpOSiL cnsllsn vr'hich is evidcnS from Anrt recover?' certifioate dated 25-2-3005 show cau.se or witiiout giving an Learnea counsel for the di ailowed to maKe a detailed rei: unsei for the petitioner. •en nled challenging the iegality ofihe recovew ,ed bv resDondent Mo.2 wherebv it has been ?s^5,24,883/-. is that the petitioner fi.rm suo motu applied to fration under Empioyees' Provident Fund Act, o.CG/17049 'svss sjiottsd, undsr A.pnexure- j)OSiT£a tn6 SPTIOUnt uUS ayainst nim LiifOUun question was passed ex-parte ^ consider the representation of ths Having heard learned couf fscts snd circumstances of tne cel' reprssentation rsising al! nls gne'i. of 1Q days and respondent No.2 another 30 days from the date of| 5il the polnt& raised by the pet!tinr| With fhe direc-tion afQresai'li Conseqijently, fv1.(W.)P. N^i disposed of. Parties are entltled for cert qirfcpfrr Mi4<nT^' tea't' tf^fRTC ^sTRrfTsn^r prqsem lisxurs-p/2. svsn thsn rssporidspt No.2 issusd .3005 under Annexure-P/3 niitnout givlng any ofciportunitv to explain to the petitioner. letitioner su&miaed that ihe oetitioner mav be itation to resoondent No.2 as the order In Ind in turn respondent No.2 be directed to Ipetitioner. ifise! for the petlttoner and having regard to the ^e, the petltloner is allowed to maKe a cietaiied |ances before respondent No.2 wlthln a period |s directed to dec.ide the representation within Ireceipt ofthe representat'on after considering |er in accoraance wrtn law. ?3. the petition 5tanct& dispossd nf. b.2491/20Q5 and I.A. No. 5830/2005 ateo stand fied oopy of this orde-r Sdl- ^C.BVado0 ((ft^y^)