1 wp 234.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 234 OF 2011 Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni Sahkari Multi State Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Jalgaon .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India and another .. Respondents Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner assails the order passed by the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal dated 20.09.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. Shri Bajaj, the learned counsel states that the notice which was issued for appearance was undated. The representative of the petitioner contacted the lawyer at Delhi. There was confusion in the mind of representative of the petitioner and he 2 wp 234.11 did not notice that hearing was to take place at Nashik, as the earlier notice which was received was for hearing at Delhi. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has not at all considered the documents filed on record and only on the ground that no arguments are advanced has passed the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner is a Multi State Co-operative Credit Society, a public institute. Therefore, it deserves to be given an opportunity of hearing. 4. Shri K. B. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the notice specifically stated that the hearing is to take place at Nashik. There was no question of any confusion, and as the petitioner remained absent the Tribunal had no option but to proceed in their absence. As the petitioner did not discharge the burden, the order has been rightly passed. 5. The petitioner is a public institution. It is a Multi State Co-operative Credit Society. It is not a case that on number of occasions the petitioner remained absent. A notice was issued for the hearing to take place on 20.09.2010 at Nashik. Only on that day the petitioner was absent and the Tribunal proceeded to 3 wp 234.11 dismiss the appeal. Taking into account the fact that there was no deliberate or willful act on the part of the petitioner to protract the matter, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 20th September, 2010 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated to appear before the Tribunal on 01st August, 2011. The Tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties shall decide the appeal expeditiously. 7. It is submitted that, pursuant to the orders dated 17.01.2011 passed by this Court the petitioner has deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh only). The order was passed against the petitioner to test the bonafides. The said order is complied with. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- after the decision in the appeal. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11