W7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (L) No. 7036 0f2007 PEELELQyER : Raipur Development Authority, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) through its Chief Executive OEcer. VERSUS Employees Provident Fund Organimtion, Regional office, Raipur through its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Circle-III, Rajpur, Ciroel III, Raipur. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Sutish K. Agnihoiri, J.) Present : Shri Manindra Shrivasmva, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Devendra Patel, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent" ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24a; ofJanuary, 2008) 1‘ The petitioner is impugning the order dated 02.11.2007; passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Cimle-III, Raipur, in the matter of Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Code No. CG/8307. . Section 7-I of The employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Aer, 1952 (for short 'The Act, 1952'), provides for statutory appeal to Tribunal against the order passed by any authority under several provisions including sub-section l of Section 7-A. The impugied order has been passed in exercise of its power under Sub-section 1 of Section 7-A of The Act, 1952. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a case Where the competence of the authority itself is in challenge, this Court may entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel timber submits that it is a well settled law that the Court may exercise its discretion in case of violation of principle of natural / justice, lack of competence of the omcer passing the order and proved malaiide. . There is no special or extraordinary circumstances exist so as to igiore statutory provisions of appeal as the order impugls deals with determinafiou of provident fund amount. Thus, this petition is not maintainable before taking recourse to statutory appeal, which is available under Section 7-1 of The Act, 1952. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory appeal available to him under provisions of law. The time spent in this Court may be taken into consideration while considering the application of the petitioner for condonation ofdelay, by the authorities, as this order is not passed on merit. 5. Thus, the petition is dismissed summarily. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri . i 1 \ l