IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3645 of 2006 M/S VIJAY TALKIES, Ghoshi Tola, P.S Karim Bazar, District Munger, through its Pushpa Singh, wife of Late Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of Ghoshitola, P.S. Karim Bazar, District Munger.................Petitioner Versus 1. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-regional office, Adampur Chak, Bhagalpur, through the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 2. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-regional office, Adampur Chak, Bhagalpur, Bihar........................Respondents *** For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate *** 4 02.07.2010 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner-Establishment has preferred this writ application challenging an order dated 11.04.2004 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, Bhagalpur (Annexure-6) by which the respondent-Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the review petition preferred by the petitioner- Establishment under section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is apparently a non- speaking order and after quoting the provisions - 2 - of Section 7B of the Act, respondent-Assistant Commissioner has rejected the review petition in one line saying that the petition does not fulfil the requirements of the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the proceeding under section 7 A of the Act, learned counsel of the petitioner was appearing all through but no material was produced before the authorities and, therefore, assessment order as contained in Annexure-4 was passed. From the review petition as contained in Annexure-5, it appears that petitioner- establishment had raised certain issues. The said issues raised in the petition, for whatever worth they were, were required to be considered by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner before passing the orders on the same. The order impugned shows that none of grounds raised in the petition have been noticed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner and after quoting the provisions of the Section 7B of the Act, he has rejected the review petition in one line saying that the review petition does not - 3 - fulfil the requirements of Section 7B of the Act. Apparently, the order is non-speaking one. The order also does not show that the petitioner establishment was noticed to appear in the proceeding under Section 7B and substantiate the grounds raised in the petition by producing materials. In the circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate that the matter should be re-heard by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and he should pass a speaking order dealing with all the grounds raised in the review petition as may be advanced by the petitioner or its representative before it. In the circumstances, the impugned Annexure is quashed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner with a copy of this order within one month from today and upon appearance, the respondent-Assistant Commissioner shall fix a firm date for hearing of the petitioner and after hearing him, shall pass a speaking order dealing with all the grounds as well as submissions, as may be made before him, within a - 4 - period of two months from the date of such appearance before the court. Upon appearance of the petitioner before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, he shall pass orders for not taking coercive action against the petitioner in the meanwhile till fresh orders are passed by him. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)