IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4482 of 2009 Date of decision: March 21, 2009. Saint Kabir Educational Society (Regd) & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Surjit Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners seeks quashing of the order dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P-6) in part as well as the order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Regional Provident Commissioner, Amritsar – respondent No.3. The petitioners' main grievance is that the notice dated 12.1.2009 calling upon them to deposit the provident fund amounting to Rs.433410/- for the period from September, 2004 to May, 2007, pertains to respondent No.4 – Saint Kabir Senior Secondary School, Kazi Court Road, Tarn Taran, and petitioner No.1 – Society has nothing to do with the said school. In other words, the petitioners' stand is that petitioner no.1 – Society is running only one educational institute, i.e., the petitioner No.2 and qua that school, the petitioner – Society is claimed to have deposited the due amount of provident fund. The question as to whether or not respondent No.4 – school is being run by petitioner No.1 – management is a pure question of fact. This plea has been specifically raised by petitioner No.1 vide its reply dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) submitted in response to the impugned notice dated 12.1.2009 (Ann P-7). It, however, appears that without determining the said question, respondent No.3 is contemplating to take coercive steps against petitioner No.1 for recovery of the arrears of provident fund which respondent No.4 is allegedly liable to deposit. Keeping the nature of the controversy in view and the fact that the petitioner has taken a specific plea in its reply dated 20.2.2009, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Amritsar to consider the above mentioned stand taken on behalf of petitioner No.1 and dispose of the petitioners' objections by passing a reasoned order. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for the recovery of the arrears of provident fund, if any, pertaining to respondent No.4 – institute. However, if the petitioner No.1 has any grievance regarding its liability towards the provident fund to be deposited by petitioner No.2 – institute, petitioner No.1 shall be at liberty to challenge such liability in appeal under the Act. Disposed of. Dasti. March 21, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge