IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17 of 2005 BIHAR SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD, THROUGH ITS STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, BELTRON BHAWAN, P.S.- SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……….PETITIONER Versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE AT R-BLOCK, ROAD NO.-6, BIHAR, PATNA. ……RESPONDENT ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Adv. ----------- 2/ 05.05.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 30.10.2000 (Annexure-1) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 7-A of The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short Act). The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 30.07.2003 (Annexure-1/A) passed under Section 7-B of the Act, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for review of the previous order dated 30.10.2000 (Annexure-1) has been rejected. Subsequent order dated 21.01.2010 (Annexur-4) passed under Section 14-B of the Act 2 has also been questioned by filing I.A. No.3206 of 2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the competent authority are contrary to the mandate of Section 16 (2) of the Act. He further submits that in view of notification dated 21.11.1995 (Annexure-6), the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the Act, and therefore, no liability can be fastened against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has challenged the very maintainability of the present writ petition. According to him, any order passed under Section 7-A or 14-B of the Act is appealable in terms of Section 7-I of the Act, and the appeal is required to be heard by a Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner could have raised all the issues before the Tribunal, which have been raised in the present proceeding. 5. After having heard the parties and on consideration of materials available on record, I find 3 that the petitioner is not covered by a notification dated 21.11.1995 (Annexure-6), and therefore, entire claim of the petitioner for protection under Section 16 (2) of the Act is completely misconceived. Despite the notification dated 21.11.1995 (Annexure-6), some more facts/materials were required to be produced by the petitioner for examination by the competent authority and only therefore, claim for exemption could have been considered. The petitioner was given full opportunity before the prescribed authority exercising powers under the Act, but despite being given opportunity, he did not produce the relevant materials and therefore, the prescribed authority decided the proceedings in accordance with law. Apart from that, the issues which are being raised, could have been raised before the learned Tribunal exercising powers of appeal in terms of Section 7 -I of the Act. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 4 7. However, if the petitioner, so advised, may file an appeal before the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed and a prayer for condonation of delay is made, then the learned Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)