IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20 .01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.9386 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 Inforys BPO Ltd., (Successors in interest to M/s.PAN Financial Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.,), Having its Branch Office at 184-187, Block 2, 6th & 7th Floor, Temae Steps, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. Rep. by its Company Secretary .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014. 2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-600 014. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the Inspection Report, based on which, proceedings under Section 7A were initiated. For Petitioner : M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For Respondents : Mr.M.Jayaraman O R D E R The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the Inspection Report, being the basis of enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that in pursuance to the Inspection Report, carried out in the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner has been issued a show cause notice under Section 7A of the Act to hold enquiry. 3. The reading of show cause notice does not show that the enquiry is, in pursuance to inspection, carried out in the premises of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents stated at Bar that the show cause notice is not based on the enquiry report, but on account of non remittance of provident fund dues by the petitioner for the period mentioned in the show cause notice. 5. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, the Inspection report, if any, is not relevant. The writ petition, therefore being misconceived, is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-600 014. 1 cc To Mr.M.Jayaraman, Advocate, SR.4437. 1 cc To M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate, SR.4153. W.P. No. 9386 of 2009 BKY(CO) RVL 15.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/