IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6665 of 2009 NAYYAR KHURSHID . Versus THE RECOVERY OFFICER,EPF & ORS . ----------- 4. 13.12.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 28.9.2007 and 7.5.2008 by which he has been assessed as liable to deposit provident fund dues as also by the order dated 17.3.2009 by which a show cause has been issued why a warrant of arrest be not issued against him for non compliance of the order. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Court does not consider it necessary to take note of the facts of the case except to the extent necessary in view of the nature of order to be passed. Suffice it to say that it appears that the establishment of the petitioner was brought under the Employees Provident Fund Act on basis of an inspection dated 2.11.1993 satisfied that it had more than 20 persons in the establishment. It is possible that thereafter at some point of time the number of the employees may have been reduced to below the statutory limit. But that was an aspect to be considered provided the petitioner had cooperated in response to the notices and appeared. From the impugned order it appears that more than sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner on 18 occasions when notice sent to him by post was also received back with the remark “refused”. Counsel for the petitioner however still makes an issue of non service of notice. If the petitioner appears before the Provident Fund authorities within two weeks from today and deposits 50% of the principal demand amount, let fresh date of hearing be fixed and a fresh appropriate order in accordance with law be passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. Any deposit in the meantime shall ultimately merge into the final order to be passed. If the petitioner is held liable for any excess amount the deposit shall be adjusted. Alternately if he is held not liable or liable for an amount lesser than that deposited the Provident Fund authorities shall proceed to act accordingly. This order has been passed on the undertaking given by the petitioner to this Court to participate in the proceeding before the authorities on each date that may be fixed by them without asking for adjournment and produce each and every document that the authorities may deem fit. If the petitioner refuses to participate and absents himself for two consecutive dates without intimation, the respondents shall be under no obligation to grant further dates. The assessment done earlier shall be deemed valid and the writ application dismissed. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)