•s®=»:3=s@S£aa^3?^.' U4 HIGH CPURTPF1 CHHATTISGARH : BILA8PUR Writ Petition (U No. 2372 of2009 Petitioner ladar Chaad Patoai, aged 61 years, Son of late Shri Gulabchand Patoai, Resident ofJain. Gali, Durg (C.G.), Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. Union Goveniment of India, Mmistry of Labour, New Delhi, Through thie Secretary. Recoveiy Officer 8& Regional Provident Fund Coiniaissioner - II, Regional Office, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) Distt Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotai J.) Shri Sonikaat Venna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for Uie respondent No, 1. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No,2. ORDBR (Passed on fhis 7th day ofMay, 2009) Learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitiouer submits that ttie petitioner chatlenges fhe legality and validity ofthe order dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P/l), whereby fhe petitioner was directed to show cause asto why he should not be coiniaitted to prison for not complymg with the order dated 24.4.1999, to pay the amount, as speci&ed ia Certificate No. PPC/ MP/ RO/ Recoveiy/ 1490/27. Learaed counsel subinits fhat fhe petitioner was given only three days tbne to file reply, tiius the petitioner could not file tlie sarae within fhree days. However, fhe reply was filed on 29.4.2009. Under the circumstaaces, since fhe matter is pendiag before fhe Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Orgaiiisation, Raipur, fh.e petitloner may approach fhe conceraed authority withia a period ofone week and put forward his case. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondents have no objection, In view of the above fhe petition stands disposed of Thalmr Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge