1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3687 OF 2009 Janaseva Sahakari Bank Limited. ....Petitioner V/s. K.D. Mulla, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. ....Respondent Mrs. Meena Doshi for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Although an appeal is probably maintainable under section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, I am inclined to interfere in the facts of this case. Admittedly, the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to the Petitioner only from September, 1987. The code number was, however, allotted to the Petitioner only on 20th May, 1997 i.e. after ten years. Prior to the Act being made applicable to the Petitioner, it had 2 implemented it’s own scheme for the benefit of its employees after having the same sanctioned by the authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act under which the Petitioner was registered. 2. The show-cause notice dated 14th November, 2008, was issued to the Petitioner for having allegedly failed to comply with the provisions of section 15(2) of the said Act. It was alleged that the entire amount standing to the balance of the fund created by the Petitioner prior to the applicability of the Act to it had not been transferred in terms of section 15(2). 3. The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice dated 1st December, 2008. The Petitioner, however, reserved its right to give a further detailed reply after receiving the relevant documents such as the complaint pursuant to which the show-cause notice was issued, the report of the enforcement officer and other documents to be relied upon by the authorities. The authorities were, therefore, requested to furnish the said information. The reply also deals with the case on merits. Considering the nature of the order, I refrain from expressing any views in regard to the same. 3 4. The impugned order dated 24th February, 2009, was passed without responding to the Petitioner’s request contained in the said reply to the show-cause notice. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the material was, in fact, ready, but that the Petitioner refused to claim the same. It is not necessary to consider this dispute. It is desirable that the matter be decided on merits especially in view of the nature of the contentions raised by the Petitioner. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 24th February, 2009, is set aside. The Respondents shall forward, under cover of a letter, the information requested by the letter dated 1st December, 2008 to the Petitioners on or before 15th February, 2010. The Petitioner shall file a further reply, if any, on or before 2nd March, 2010. The Respondents shall thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.