IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2711 (MS) of 2011 Bal Ram Singh …Petitioner Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 and another …Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2712 (MS) of 2011 Chandra Prakash Nautiyal …Petitioner Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 and another …Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2713 (MS) of 2011 M/s Tanu Contruction …Petitioner Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 and another …Respondents And Writ Petition 2714 (MS) of 2011 Arjun Singh Ranghar …Petitioner Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 and another …Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate present for respondent no. 1. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2 2. All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who claimed to be petty contractors and are doing such works for “Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited” (from hereinafter referred to as ‘BSNL’). All of them have received from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1, Dehradun, Uttarakhand under Section 7 A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The notice is in the nature of show cause asking the petitioners to furnish certain details before the said authority. The petitioners contend that though the said authority has powers to issue such notice they are challenging it presently on the ground that they cannot be asked to furnish the record pertaining to period from 2000 to 2010, as it is difficult for them to furnish record of such a long period. They are also not covered under the Act and from their liability, he contends. 3. Be that as it may, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and this Court is convinced that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1, Dehradun, Uttarakhand has the power to issue such notice under Section 7 A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. As such, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. 4. As such, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall give its reply to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1, Dehradun, Uttarakhand within two weeks from today. The said authority on the said objections raised by the petitioners shall pass an order stating the reasons as to why such notice has been given to them. The respondent shall 3 dispose of the objections of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible before proceeding any further in the matter. 5. With the aforesaid direction, all the writ petitions are disposed of finally. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 23.12.2011 Virendra