IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12986 of 2006 Murlidhar Agrawal son of late Basudeo Prasad Agrawal, Proprietor M/s Solar Industries, Chowk Bazar, P.S. Munger, District Munger, Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar Patna, 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner-cum- Recovery Officer, Bhagalpur, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub- Regional Officer, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur- 812001, … .. Respondents For the Petitioner: M/s Alok Kumar Sinha, Indrajeet Bhushan & Manish Kr., Advocates For Respondent No.2: Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate ----------- 2 06.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 1, whereby he has been directed by the respondent no. 2 to pay the dues with regard to provident fund of the employees. The sole ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of this application is that the petitioner filed objections, as contained in Annexures 7 and 8, pursuant to the show-cause notice issued by the authority raising a point that the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) are not applicable in case of his establishment as only 5-6 employees are working therein. 2 However, the authority, which was obliged under section 7(a) of the Act to decide the matter, has not recorded any finding though the same was obviously raised on behalf of the petitioner as is apparent from the copies of objections as contained in Annexures 7 and 8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that though the petitioner would be covered under the Act in view of the fact that he has signed the coverage performa, however, he could not point out that the case of the petitioner has been discussed and any finding has been recorded by the authority while passing the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1. As a result, in the opinion of this Court, the order as contained in Annexure 1 cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority (respondent no. 2) to take a fresh decision after hearing the concerned party by passing a reasoned order dealing with the points raised on behalf of the petitioner. Since this order is being passed in presence of the parties, the petitioner is required to file a fresh application before the concerned authority along with a copy of this order within eight weeks and thereafter the respondent no. 2 will 3 take decision as expeditiously as possible, but not later than ten weeks. This disposes of the writ application. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)