SCA/1189/1988 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1189 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== MIHEER TEXTILES LTD & another Versus UNION OF INDIA & others ====================================== Appearance : MR ASHOK L SHAH for Petitioners MR Harin Raval for Respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 25/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Today, when the matter is called out for final hearing, none SCA/1189/1988 2/2 JUDGMENT appears for the petitioners. 2 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the summons and notices dated 8th February 1988 issued by respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Section 7A of the Provident Fund Act seeking explanation from the petitioners to show cause as to why enquiry should not be held against petitioner No.1 and determine the amount payable by petitioner No.1 for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme 1971 on the ground that petitioner No.1 has not deducted contribution towards family pension scheme in respect of the employees, who have not opted for the same. 3 Summons and notices have been issued on 8th February 1998 and it is always open to the petitioners to answer the summons and notices and this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either forbearing or preventing the Authority concerned from proceeding further in pursuance of the summons/notices issued by them. If the summons/notices are contrary to law or in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, it is always open to the petitioners to submit before the Authority and challenge the outcome in accordance with law. The decision of the Bombay High Court relied on by the petitioner is subject to outcome of the appeal preferred by the Authority before the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay. 4 This petition has no substance and is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. The interim relief stands vacated. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)