IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1374 of 2010. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2&3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-U.P.S.R.T.C. WITH (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1375 of 2010. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2&3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-U.P.S.R.T.C. (2) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1381 of 2010. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2&3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-U.P.S.R.T.C. (3) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1382 of 2010. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Union of India and others. …Respondents. 2 Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2&3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-U.P.S.R.T.C. (4) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1383 of 2010. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2&3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-U.P.S.R.T.C. (5) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1384 of 2010. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2&3. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-U.P.S.R.T.C. Date December 21, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate submits that in all these writ petitions, amendment/correction applications were moved by the petitioner for correction of the date of impugned notice issued against the petitioner in the prayer clause as well as at other places in the memo of petition. Along with the correction application, the petitioner has also sought to bring on record the notice dated 11-6-2010 (Annexure-1 to the amendment application) instead of notice dated 11-5-2010. The amendment applications were already allowed by order dated 29-9- 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to file amended memo of writ petition in each case. 3 The petitioners are permitted to file amended memo of writ petition in each case during the course of the day. Heard. Since the petitioners herein have sought quashing of the impugned notices dated 9-9-2009 as well as notice dated 11-6-2010 (Annexure-1 to the amendment application) instead of notice dated 11- 5-2010, therefore, the interim order dated 6-8-2010 passed by this Court shall be operative in respect of the notices dated 3-9-2009 and dated 11-6-2010 (Annexure No.1 to the amendment application) and to that extent the interim order passed by this Court earlier shall stand modified. Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is almost similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notices impugned, wherein orders have been passed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act). Learned counsel for the respondents-Employees Provident Fund Organization has raised a preliminary objection that alternate statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 7I of the Act is available to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners may be relegated to avail the said remedy before the Tribunal. I have perused the provision of Section 7I of the Act, which reads as under:- “7I. Appeals to Tribunal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub- section (3), or sub-section (4) of section 1, or section 3, or sub- section(1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, has vehemently urged that the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has been subjected to entire recovery of amounts for the previous period, i.e. prior to creation of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, which was to be recovered from the U.P.S.R.T.C. Instead of recovering that amount from the U.P.S.R.T.C., the recovery is being made of the entire amounts from the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. In view of the provision of Section 7I of the Act, the petitioners are given liberty to file appeal before the Tribunal concerned within a period of 30 days from today. Interim order dated 6-8-2010 passed by this Court as modified by this order shall continue for a period of 30 days. The petitioners may raise either all or any of the grounds in the appeal, which have been raised by them in these writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petition are dismissed on the ground of statutory alternate remedy available to the petitioners. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP