CWP No.23210 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23210 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 05-01-2011 M/s Gurdarshan Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J This petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2007. A prayer has been made to set aside the same with a further prayer that an application moved by him on 19.12.2007 to set aside the order dated 10.9.2007 be directed to be decided. The petitioner has been assessed under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act and an assessment has been made vide the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount assessed under the provisions of Section 7 F of the Employees Provident Fund Act within a period of 15 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is totally arbitrary as the petitioner was not having any establishment which can be assessed to the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act. He contends that he neither has a working establishment nor the requisite number of employees so as to fall within the ambit of the provisions of the CWP No.23210 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Employees Provident Fund Act and therefore the assessment which has been made is incorrect. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order as also the relevant material accompanying the petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was afforded number of opportunities spread out over a period of one year but the petitioner failed to present his side of the case before the competent authority leaving the Court with no option but to proceed to determine the liability of the petitioner on the basis of the material which was before it in the shape of a report of the Enforcement Officer. Even thereafter though the petitioner moved an application in December, 2007 to set aside the order, he had failed to effectively pursue such a remedy and once the respondents have resorted to recovery by way of coercive process, the petitioner has filed the instant petition with a prayer that his assessment be made afresh on the basis of merit. I am afraid the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. The impugned order reveals several wasted opportunities wherein the petitioner failed to associate himself with the proceedings before the competent authority. Even thereafter, also the petitioner made no serious attempt to get the order set aside even though the liability was starring at him and now once the coercive process has been initiated against him, the petitioner has woken up to the issue that the impugned order and the consequent recovery procedure are erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law as he was never served. The bona fides of the petitioner are not established and his plea that he was never served cannot be accepted in view of the observations made in the impugned order which revealed that the petitioner CWP No.23210 of 2010 (O&M) 3 was conscious of the proceedings but deliberately did not participate in the same and permitted an adverse order to come into existence. There being no justification regarding the conduct of the petitioner and in the absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. January 05, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge