2. Prahlad Kumar Agmwal, ageii aliaui 46 yaw‘s, S/0 Nirajanial Agrawal, Di'resmr, M/s. Vaaadima hidusiries Ltd. fegideiii 0f Vaiiijianai Bhawan. M.G. Road, Ra§pur (C(E.) RESPONDENTS :3. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, C§rsle HI, Regiona} Office, Raipar, Chham‘sgarh. Enforazemem' Ol‘i‘Ewr, Bhavighya Nicihi Bhawan, Indira Gandhi Vyavsayik Parisar. Mack D, Fandri, Raipm‘. ‘3. Empioyees Provident Fund Organization, Re'gimmi Office, Ehavishya Nidhi Bhawan, indira Gandhi Vyavs‘ayik ?a1‘isar, Biock: D Schamaa Ne. 32, Pmdri, Raipur CG. PE’i‘E’i‘IO‘NAUNDER AR’i‘iCEJEgQ6 OF AHL CONS'i‘i'i‘LI‘iiON O F INDIA §3m “Jiiun, bk: wan a, gamggix. V Ammmtm, . .. J. ' Present Shri Neeiabh Eubey, Aaivocate for me petitioner. Sim Pradeap Saxena, Advocate for {ha rsSepondems. HE§E CCvURT {W (‘%?§A’§"§‘i‘§GAI€H AT RILASW R WRIT I3E'I‘J'I‘IQN {3)} No! 3423 (>f20ié8 PETTHONER : L M/S. Vandama Industrias Lid. A Camgany imawoi‘amd umiar The Cempaii£6s Act 1956 havimg its registered office at Vmdana BuiMing, MG. Raad, Raipur aria} Uarit—L Situaied a? Piot N0. 606, Urla Indusiriai Ai’eaa Raipm‘, (€.G.)n {Waugh 5:5 Eiréctm‘, Ski“; Pmhiad Agrawal. VERSUS p3 gRAL URMER {I’zmsed an 18m day vsf August. 2008} The present petitim) impugns the arder daied 28.09.2007 (Annemxre 13/3) passed by the: Agsistant Pyoviden‘t Fund Comrnissioner. Raigmr whéreby ihe patii‘ioaer has been direcuad to deposit the amount as (iet'ermined ibri‘hwiih on receipt ei‘ the order, failing which. ihe ouigtariding ameum shaii he recoveied by imleking provigions oi‘section 8 of‘the Empioyees’ i‘m‘videm Funiis am? Miseeiianeoue Pravisions Act. 1952 (fer Sheri ‘1he Act, i952}. Leameii ceumei appearing fer the petitioner m‘bmits that the getitioner eempany hzm paid more ihzm 5f) iacs iowarcis pmviiient fuad. E.S.i. zine weifare ef‘itg empioyees. Since the i'eievant documents were seized by ihe Central Excise Depamnem am thereaiier by the Commercial Tax Authorities, ihe petitioner couid not We the same in iime, now the neiitioners have oh‘iained those documenis oniy afier order daied M L’O 6.11.2007 passed by this Couri in W.P.('1‘) N0. ’7’527/2i307 (Vandana PW. Ltd. & another v. Siate Appe'Hate Forum and Qthers). 3 Shri Dubey further submits that the peiitioner-compmly has paid more than 50 lacs as caniri‘bmian tewards Empioyees Provident Fund, ESL and weE‘are 0f its empioyees as staied in para 8.} '1 0f me petition. He fumher submiis ihai since the petiiiozner has obtained aH the necessary documents whim are relevam ami necessary fer iiisposai of the éispme; the respomiem-autheriiies may iae directed i0 ecmsider/review his case in the Eght efihe docaments received by the petitioner recentiy. 4. Shri Saxena. ieamed eounsei appearing for ihe respondent authorities submits thaf there is no provision under section 7—A ()fthe Employees’ E’rovident Funds and Misceilaneous Provisions Act. 1952 for review. The prescribed time iimit for making en application for review bf the erder has been over. ‘Jl .2- Be thai as ii may. admiitedly, since the petitioner-company was net in possession (if the relevant decumems whieh are :iow iii possession of the petitioner. in the interest ofjuetice, it wouiii be expediem‘ that the respondent No. i may consider the case of the petitioner afresh aiier having examin eci the eioeumenis giroduced by the petitioner. 6. According‘iy, the petition ie disposeqi ef with a direction that if aii appiication is moved Witiain a period of seveii days? me deiay siiaii riot come in way and the case of ‘ihe petitioner may be comsiciered in accordance with 1aw, on its own merit. without being infineneed by any opinion, if any. expressed hereinaiier. No orcier asio costs. Sd/— Satish K_ Agnihotri -.. Judge Amit