pvr Lpa173-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.173 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2396 OF 2011 Indian Chronicles Ltd. ...Appellant vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation. ...Respondent --- Mr.P.M.Bhagat, for Appellant. Ms.S.V.Bharucha, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 12th September,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the petition on the ground that the petitioner has alternate remedy. So far as the challenge in the petition to order dated 12.10.2010 at Exhibit A on the record of the writ petition is concerned, there is no dispute that alternate remedy of appeal is available. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that so far as Visit Note dated 30.3.2009 is concerned, no alternate remedy pvr Lpa173-11 of appeal is available. In our opinion, challenge to Visit Note dated 30.3.2009 cannot be said to be not rightly entertained by the learned Single Judge, because we do not find any explanation given in the petition as to why if by Visit Note dated 30.3.2009 the petitioner was directed to pay the amount, he did not approach the Court immediately and waited till February, 2011. Thus, we find that the order made by the learned Single Judge is a just order and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. As appeal itself is disposed of, Civil application no.225 of 2011 does not survive for consideration, it is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)