1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 666/2009 (The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola VERSUS M/s Triveni Construction, Dist. Yavatmal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A. Parihar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.W. Sambre, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 29, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 13.08.2008 granting exemption to the respondent no.1 under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of providing several opportunities to the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 had not produced the relevant material before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in granting exemption on the ground that there was no statement in the impugned order to indicate that the beneficiaries are identified either by 2 the Enforcement Officer or by the Inspector on spot inspection. Shri Sambre, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, however, took this Court through the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the Act to point out that several documents were produced by the respondent no.1 before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. On a perusal of the entire order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, it is apparent that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner had not made a reference to the beneficiaries or the persons who were identified by the Enforcement Officer/Inspector, on spot inspection. The order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is completely silent on this issue and it is prima-facie difficult to ascertain from the order as to how the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has fastened the liability of Rs.6,10,003/- on the respondent no.1. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,New Delhi,therefore,committed no error whatsoever in granting total exemption to the 3 respondent no.1 and waiving the condition of pre-deposit of 75% of the assessed amount. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE