1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.958 OF 2009 M/s. Laxmi Art Products, Through its partner Sau. Shashikala w/o Hiralal Mudiganti, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Rohit Chamber, Dasare Nagar, Near Vasant Tekadi, Savedi, Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Provident Fund (Compliance) Sub Regional Office (SRO Nashik), P-11, M.I.D.C. Satpur, Nashik, At Post Tq. District Nashik. .. Respondent ... Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22-12-2008 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) SRO, Nashik under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in the matter of Review Application filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the Authority on 08-12-2008 rejected the Review Application under Section 7-B of the said Act on the ground that the matter is already decided under Section 7-A of the said Act. Roznama dated 08-12-2008 reads as under. "Date 8/12/08... Shri. Santosh JOshi, advocate appeared. He produced copy of S.S.I. registration of Laxmi Art Products issued by D.I.C. Ahmednagar which is taken on record. Mr. Joshi shown his willingness to argue the matter. However, the matter is already 3 decided in 7-A enquiry and there is no new finding, hence review application of the applicant dt. 19/8/08 u/s 7-B is rejected." 4. On the other hand, at the time of communicating the said order, the Authority in their letter dated 22-12-2008 observed that the Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner requested next date of hearing. Those observations are as under. "AND WHEREAS, Shri Santosh Joshi, Advocate appeared for the hearing along with authority letter but failed to submit his written say on definition of "Handicraft" word and requested for next date of hearing." 5. It is crystal clear from the above mentioned observations that the lower Authority rejected the petitioner's Review Application under Section 7-B of the said Act on the ground that the application under Section 7-A already decided. 4 6. Considering the facts, order passed by the Authority dated 22-12-2008 and order dated 08-12-2008 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), S.R.O. Nashik, for fresh hearing. 7. Authority is directed to decide the matter after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, within three months from the receipt of this order. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner will not ask adjournment on any count. 9. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp958.09