1 wp 4823.11. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4823 OF 2011 M/s Dollex Industried Ltd., (Lessee M/s Godavari Manar S. S. K Ltd., Shankar Nagar, Biloli, Dist. Nanded), 502, D-Wing, 'Dheeraj Swapana', Polli Naka, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 50 Through its Authorised Signatory. .. .. Petitioner Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office, 'Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Sub Regional Office, Plot No. 2, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad .. .. Respondents Shri Parag P. Shahane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Standing Counsel for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06TH JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2 wp 4823.11. 2. The petitioner assails the order passed by the respondent U/Sec. 7-A, 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 on the ground that same was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Shri Shahane, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the establishment is closed since the year 2008 and so no question arises of any contribution towards the E. P. F. But as no proper opportunity was given, these facts could not be placed on record. The learned counsel submits that opportunity be given to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits before the authority. 4. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has got an alternate efficacious remedy available before the Tribunal. The petitioner can file the appeal against the impugned order. As alternate efficacious remedy is available, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel further contends that it is the present petitioner who himself has not availed the opportunity. The respondent had given opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that the 3 wp 4823.11. authority has considered all the facts and thereafter has passed the correct order. 5. I have perused the order. The order shows that none represented the petitioner. In view of the fact that the order impugned is as good as an ex-parte order, I am inclined to entertain the writ petition, though the petitioner has an alternate remedy. 6. I accept the grounds stated by the petitioner for its non appearance before the authority and grant the petitioner one more opportunity to represent its case. The petitioner is required to show its bonafides by depositing some amount for the same. As such I pass the following order. O R D E R A. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. B. The petitioner is relegated to the respondent. C. The respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall decide the proceedings afresh. D. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 4 wp 4823.11. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh only) with the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. E. Deposit of the amount is condition precedent. F. All points are kept open. G. The Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11