IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SB) No. 378 of 2006 M/s Arif Industries Ltd and another. ….…Petitioners. Versus Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Dehradun, Uttaranchal and others. …Respondents. Present:- Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J, (Oral) 1. Despite several opportunities given, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. No one is appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been allocated a Centralised Provident Fund Code Number. While the Centralised Provident Fund Code Number was issued to the petitioner, his earlier Provident Fund Code Numbers of different offices had been cancelled. In the petition, the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is being show caused for not having honoured its commitments pertaining to the cancelled Provident Fund Code Numbers. It appears to us that having considered the documents annexed to the writ petition, and particularly the documents suggesting cancellation of the earlier Regional Code Numbers while granting the Centralised Code Numbers, the respondents have chosen not to file a counter affidavit and have also realised that the notices impugned in the writ petition were unsustainable. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition, quash the notices dated 30.1.2004 and 18.5.2004 being Annexures 5 and 7 to the writ petition. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 04.10.2010 Rathour