1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 3389 OF 2011 *** Lokvikas Sahakari Bank Ltd. Plot No.10, Seven Hills, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. Through its Manager, Chief Executive Officer. ... PETITIONER. Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Plot No.2, Town Centre, Commercial Area, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT *** Mr. P. S. Dhige, Advocate i/b Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K. B. Choudhari, Stand Counsel for the respondent/ authority. *** CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED:- 2nd MAY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Advocate Shri Dighe for Petitioner, Advocate Shri Chaudhari for Respondent, finally. 2. Short grievance of Petitioner/ bank is its application for review filed within time under section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been dismissed without any notice and an opportunity of 2 hearing to it. Learned counsel points out that entire amount claimed as a result of section 7-A proceedings is already recovered by the department. According to Shri Chaudhari provisions of Section 7-B are very clear and opportunity of hearing is contemplated only when the reviewing authority finds it necessary to alter the order of which review is sought. For said purpose he is relying upon provisions of subsection (4) of section 7-B. 3. With the assistance of both learned counsel I have perused the relevant provision. It is not in dispute that powers to be exercised either under section 7-A or under section 7-B of 1952 Act are quasi judicial in nature. The review can be sought by a person aggrieved by an order passed under section 7-A. The grounds on which review can be sought are not very relevant at this stage but then it is important to note that the proviso to section 7-B (1) also permits competent authority which has passed order under section 7-A to have a review of its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so on the valid grounds. Subsection (2) then stipulates filing of application for review within limitation and the mode and manner in which same can be filed. 3 Subsection (3) enables authority receiving that application to reject the same if it "appears" to him that there is no "sufficient ground" for review. 4. The grounds on which review can be sought become relevant for the purpose of subsection (3). Those grounds as given in subsection (1) are discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence, some mistake or error apparent on fact of record or any other sufficient reason. Thus, an aggrieved person like present petitioner can seek review on any of these three grounds before the respondent. The Respondent is also competent to review its own order if it finds that a case for review in favour of department on these grounds is made out. Words "appears" and "no sufficient ground" employed in subsection (3) of section 7-B cast an obligation upon that authority to record finding at-least prima facie about availability or non-availability of such grounds. Subsection (4) permits that authority to grant the review. Proviso to subsection (4) then stipulates that such review shall not be granted without previous notice to all parties before the authority. It is, therefore, 4 obvious that at the stage when review application is being considered under subsection (3) the aggrieved party alone needs to be given a hearing to find out whether a case for review is made out or not. If, according to the authority, no such case is made out there is no question of proceeding further to hear all other parties, as contemplated by proviso (1) of subsection (4) thereof. 5. I therefore found no merit in the contention that a statutory remedy could have been denied without extending an opportunity of hearing to present petitioner. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Petitioner to appear before Respondent on 23rd May, 2011 and said Respondent shall hear petitioner on its review application and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:02/05/2011. ans/3389 5 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3389 OF 2011 Date of decision: 2nd MAY, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. DHARMADHIKARI. Sd/- Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No fair copy of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? Sd/- [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE