IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.13442 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 28, 2011. M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is an approved contractor of the B.S.N.L. He seeks quashing of the letter dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-5) addressed by the B.S.N.L. to its Director asking him to deposit the amount of PPF under the EPF and MP Act, 1952. The record would reveal that the petitioner has even approached the Civil Court and obtained a restraint order against the recovery on the plea that he shall file a revision petition against the order fastening the EPF liability on it. Instead of filing the revision petition, the petitioner has approached this Court. CWP No.13442 of 2011 [2] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. Suffice it to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authorities under the 1952 Act, it has got the remedy of appeal or revision etc. before the higher authorities under the Act. However, if such orders have attained finality, the petitioner may seek the judicial review and/or to deposit the amount as demanded by the B.S.N.L. Dismissed. July 28, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE