HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1997 of 2009 (M/S) M/s Uttarakhand Transport & Forwarding Agency …. Petitioner .. Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttarakhand … Respondent Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashok Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. 25th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri Rajendra Tamta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashok Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the proceedings initiated against him by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Haldwani under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The initial order was passed on 13.8.2008 under Section 7A of the Act fixing a liability against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he has a statutory remedy under Section 7B of the Act of filing a review petition against the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, in case he has not filed appeal against the said order. As such, the petitioner has already moved a review petition under Section 7B which is pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Haldwani. However, instead of passing an order on the said review petition, further coercive measures have been taken by the respondent under the Act. The only contention of the petitioner is that although he is willing to cooperate with the 2 authorities, the authorities i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner should not take recourse to the coercive measures without deciding the review petition which is pending before him. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Lalit Belwal, therefore, has limited his prayer to the extent that the review petition which is pending before the respondent may be decided and till then no coercive measure be taken against the petitioner. The prayer seems to be justified. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of at the admission stage itself with directions to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to dispose of the review petition of the petitioner under Section 7B of the Act by a speaking order and till such a petition is disposed of all coercive measures adopted against the petitioner regarding recovery as well as for the arrest of the petitioner shall be put in abeyance. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.11.2009 Avneet