y L H3GH^COURTaF_CHHATTiSGARHAT BSLASPUR HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & "•ON'CLE SHRi SUMiL KU?^AR SINHA, J. APPLICANT: RESEQNQENI ,C.C,_N_04lO^E.%Oe6 M/s. Parakh Akshat Udyog through its Partner: Umsd Chandra Parakh, Gram: Labrakhurd, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus The Regionai Provident Fund Commlssloner, Reglona! Offlce, Raipur, Distt: Raipur (C.G.) APPLiCATION_FOR^10D!FiCATiO C!-ARiRCATIONC>E OIJDER 010,17/12/2004JNW.P, N0.3728/2004 Present : PS Koshy for the petiitoenr Shri Pradesp Saxena for the rsspondent. Q.RDgR (11thSeptsmber,2QQ8) The foilowina order of the Court was passed by Rajeev ©upta,CJ. Learned counsei for the parties are heard. 2) The petitioner, who was Detitioner in W.P. No.3728/2004 is seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 17.12.2004 passed inW.P. No.3728/2004, wherebythe Detitioner'swrit petition was dlsposed of in the foiiowing terms: "Learned counsei for the petitioner submit that novv the AppsSSate Tribunai has started functioning and the petitSoner wants to withdra-vv this petitjon with liberty to prefer an appeai with an urgent application for stay. They ajso submlt that this Court in simiSar matter bearing W.P. No.3506/03 has passed the orders on 6/2/2004. They pray for simliar order. Learned counsei for the respondent does not dispute the fact. Havlng thus considered, the respondent is directed not toadopt the coercive methods for recovery of the penaity amount till the urgent stay appiicatlon i's taken up for hearing and order Ss passed by the Appetlate Tribunal. VVith the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Consequentiy, M.W.P. No.4155/04 aiso stands disposed of. Certifled copy as per rules." 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counset for the parties, we do not find any ground warranting modification/clarification of the order dated 17.12.2004 passed in W.P. No.3728/2004. 4) The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. padma Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge