Y// C_^ -L?5-^>z IN THE HIGH COURT QFLCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. r L ) N0. 1 t) ^^ OF 2010 PETITIONER(S) , : 1. Anil Sharma, S/o, Late Harbansh Lal Sharma, aged about 53 years, R/o. Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) v^- ^ vp^'/ ^y' '<.>•-•" <y ^2. Brij Mohan Sharma, S/o. Late Harbansh Lal Sharma, aged about 58 years, R/o. Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^. 1. Employees Provident Fund Organization, through its Regional Provident Fund CoYYimissioner, Regional Office, Chhattisgarh, " . ^ ;5'neli^o^ ^ Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan/ Nindipa. Gandhi, Vyavshayik Parisar, Block - D, Scheme No. 32, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Asstt. Provident Commissioner, Office of Asstt. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore (M.P.) Recovery Officer, Office of Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Chhattisgarh, Bhavishya Nidhi ^a^G^ji^Q^^> Bhawan, Nindira Gandhi, Vyavshayik Parisar, BIock - D, Scheme No. 32, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.j WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) N0. 1032 OF 2010 PETIT1QNERS Anil Sharma & another RESPONDENTS Versus Employee Provident Fund Organization & others (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. 2. 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day ofApril, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 21.01.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby, it has been directed to the petitioners to appear before the Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization and show cause asto why the petitioners should not becommitted to the ptison in execution ofthe certificates. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the show cause notice the petitioners have already made the representation before the authority concerned, by filing reply dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure P/7). Thus, the second part of the show cause notice to commit to the prison does not arise before consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioners and passing the appropriate order. Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is simple notice, no warrant has been issued and that was contingent upon the fact that if the petitioners failed to reply to show cause and satisfies the Recovery Officer. Thus, the arrest warrant Gowri would not be issued until the final order is passed pursuant to the subjected show cause notice, and reply thereon. In view of foregoing, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. However, the authority concerned is directed to consider to case of the petitioners on the basis of reply submitted by them to the show cause notice and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. __^^—- Sd/- . ,, SatishK.A&nalot"