IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4079 of 2005 KRITYA NAND RUKHAIYAR, son of Sri Krishna Nand Prasad Resident of M.I.G 34, Kankerbagh Colony, P.S. Kankerbagh District Patna Versus 1.The Employees Provident Fund Organisation under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, R-Block, Road no.6, Patna-1 through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2.The Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidi Bhawan, R-Block, Road no.6,Patna-1 3.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) Patna, Bihar 4.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, R-Block, Road no.6,Patna-----respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Raj Nandan Prasad,Advocate For the respondents :Mr.Jai Prakash Verma,Advocate ----- 2. 12.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the E.P.F. authorities. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the order dated 16.2.1995 passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and communicated to the petitioner along with covering letter dated 24.3.1995 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna under his speed post letter dated 9.9.2002. He further prays to quash the order dated 19.8.2003 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (compliance), Patna by which the liability of the petitioner’s firm towards payment of provident fund dues to its 2 employees has been determined for the period from November, 1994 to March, 2003 at Rs. 3,11,161/- and also to quash the consequent notices issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and the Recovery Officer. It appears from the materials on the record that the order under section 7A of the Act was passed initially on 12.11.1993 and subsequently the impugned order dated 16.2.1995 was passed. Today the petitioner claims that it has been received by him in September, 2002. The said orders are appealable under section 7-I of the Act subject to review under section 7-B of the Act. No such statutory remedies have been availed of by the petitioner and belatedly the present writ application has been filed in the year 2005. This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot redetermine the various issues of fact when the original coverage is based upon certain information supplied by the petitioner in his own handwriting although the petitioner now disputes the same on the basis of the contemporary attendance register which he claims that the same has been signed by the E.S.I. authorities also, and further the returns submitted by the petitioner’s service centre to M/s.Maruti Udyog 3 Limited. These materials ought to have been placed for consideration before the competent authorities of the E.P.F. Organization and not before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not consider it proper to entertain the present writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to seek whatever appropriate statutory remedies are available in the matter on the basis of the documents in his possession. In case, the petitioner approaches the statutory authorities under the Act along with an application for condoning the delay in approaching them, they shall consider the same keeping in view that the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court since the year 2005. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/