MTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WP. No§w33 /2005 PETITIONER : / NATIONAL ENGLISH SCHOOL, Jagdalpul; Dislt: Bastar( Chhattisgarh) A Non-Govcrmncm and Un-aidcd Private School. Run by BASTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY, Bearing registration no. 43/ 1961-62. Through thc Vicc A Society registered undcr the Societies Rcgisu‘zllion Act. I860, Chairman, Managing Committee, National English School. Jagdalpur, DistL Bastar (C.G.) Versus ESPONDENTS : R V “ (1) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner S: Sub-Regional Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Raipu'r (CG) r (2) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Officer : Employees Providcnt li‘unrl Organization, Raipur (CG) .-‘ (3) UNION OF INDIA, Through the School Provident F I” (4) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of School Iii'ducation, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) . (5) The Union Bank of India New Delhi und Commissioner, B‘I 1 Inc} ‘l *Jagdalput ‘, r‘r \ 1 Ex Through the Branch Manager ”It \PET JTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. or 'rrrn r most respectfully submits as under #9 LARS OF THE PETITIONELg— t“ Xy - \ y" “That’, the Petitioner is a English Medium Higher Secondary School. run lay the Bastal‘EdttcatiOll Society, 1862. registered under the Societies Registration Act. ’ k Vc U o w FWB man $11175 anéaW (ww) ‘mmo K mmma ma mm‘€%€tm aiwmw 24.10.2005 w.P.No‘5oa3/2oo5 Shri Manoj Paranjape, Heard on admission. This wr'i1' pe‘rifion has Jeen filed for quashing The no‘rice dated 13.5.2005 (Annexure' P-1) said To have been issued under Second Schedule 1’0 fhe Income Tax of The Employees“ Providen'r 1952. If has also been fi 5.9.2005(Annexure P—2) isSL Office, Raipur. Learned counsel for Tl some orders for deposi‘ring T by l'he Regional Providen‘r Fur which ‘The amoun'l' was To be < ”the pe‘lh‘ioner was no"? saTisf in ques‘rion direc‘l‘ed To be de The original order on 7.10.2 Annexure P-12. He also sL sfafufory remedy provided Providen‘l Fund—and Miscellar iaT when a peTiTion for review has been 1e pe’ri‘lioner submiTs fha‘r on 10.9.2004 he amoun? of Providenf Fund was passed id Commissioner, Raipur, in compliance of leposiTed. He furl-her submi‘l‘s Tha‘l’ since ed wi'l’h ‘l'he defermina'l’ion of ‘lhe amounf :posifed; i1” filed a pe‘ri'l‘ion for review of 304, a copy of which has been filed as ibmi'l's ThaT The remedy of review is a under Seci'ioh 7‘8 of The Employees The provision and submi‘l’s Tl eous Provisions ACT, 1952. He refers To counsel for The pefi'rioner. Ac‘l’, 1961,read wiTh Sec’rion 8-9 f0 8-5 Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Acrl, led for quashing anofher notice da’red led by The Recovery Officer, Regional Xl-HC-78 4 wmm$ ................................ .... mzeo Wfmg 31WW (Wm) metmféw'm 1 amanésmqim mmwmwwm x2, a; 31%;! anésr 3mmma 311w fiied before fhe’compe‘ren‘r aufhori‘ry, The aufhorify was under obiiga‘rion To dispose of ‘ihe same. However, according To ieor-ned counsel for fhe pefi‘rioner, The; auThor'iTy has no? Taken any acfion on The pe‘i’ii’ion fiied for review of fhe original order and in The meanwhile, in The process of been issued f0 fhe peTH‘ioner. quashmen‘i of fhe aforesaid fw no'iices. In The facfs and circu s‘mnces of fhe case, when fhe review; l‘l’self againsi’ fhe original or er is pending before Thecompe‘l’enf au'rhorify, I am nof inclined To nTerfer-e wiTh The noTices of execuTion when neiTher The validiTy of Th noTice nor The process in execu‘l’ion is under challenge nor fhe juri dicTion of The auThoriTy issuing The noTices has been challenged. AT This sTage, learned c unsel for The peTiTioner submiTs Tha‘T if The review is disposed of by T e concerned auThoriTy and The original ‘ order is seT aside, fhen every hing wouid come 'ro m end. He fur‘u‘her‘ submiTs ThaT if The peTiTione shall be held responsible for making paymenT, iT is bound To make p ymenT and if in The review iT succeeds and The original order is seT as dey Then’There would be no impedimenT on The peTiTioner. Learned counsel for Th peTiTioner prays for some observaTion ' for early disposal of review ap licaTion. ecu'i’ion, aforesaid Two nofices have r is in This si‘ruafion, he is praying for x ’ Xl~HC~78 WWWW 1N 3° 3’3 3 § mmm$ ..., M200 311%?TW (WW) mmW shéal mmffi§€tm aimsn‘w sfances af The casa, wifhou? ir‘rer‘fering r which nofice$ (Annexur'esrP—l anci P-2 r if ié expected Tha’r The review filed by .d of by The concerned aufhorify a The ‘rh law so fha‘f, The ma’rfer' may om 1’ In The faC‘rs and circum ~ " *i‘v‘? #Wafwé'és of recovery f0 are su I W; can only say fha‘ Hrhe pemloner- shaH be dlspos< earliesf claTe m accordance w a1 an end. Wi-rh fhe aforesaid ob of.“ In of fhis I.A.No.8832/2005 for urgen‘t e .J h; . View . servahons, “the pe‘ri‘rion sfands disposed order, M.W.P.No.4064/ZOO5 and hearing sfands disposed of. ‘ Kumar “‘\a S‘ml Judge o m “ g a ) f ce 0 S‘ f