VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 4651 OF 2008 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahkari Petitioner Sanstha Maryadit Vs. The Assist. Provident Fund Commissioner Respondent Mr. Surel S. Shah, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sureshkumar, for the Respondent. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : JULY 2, 2008. PC :- . By an order of this Court dated 20th December 2007 the respondent was directed to re-compute the amounts, if any, due and payable by the petitioner under section 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and to pass a fresh order within the stipulated period. It may be noted that the petitioner had pursuant to the ad-interim order dated 8th May 2004 deposited an amount of Rs.48 lakhs with the P.F. Authorities. . The Assistant P.F. Commissioner has by an order dated 11th February 2008 maintained the earlier order, observing that on 29th January 2008 when the proceeding was listed for hearing, the petitioner was absent and the - 2 - petitioner had not filed either a reply or documents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contested the observation that the petitioner was not present. The reply filed by the petitioner on 6th February 2008 has been produced on record which bears the endorsement of the P.F. Authorities. There is merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in any event the respondent was not justified in passing an order, confirming the earlier order without taking into account the reply which was filed by the petitioner, much prior to the date of the impugned order. This is quite apart from the submission which is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had remained present before the authorities on diverse dates. 3. Having regard to the terms of the earlier order passed by this Court on 20th December, 2007 it would be appropriate and proper, if the respondent is directed to carry out a computation of the payments due under section 7Q, after furnishing the petitioner a fresh opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner does not wish to file any further documents and that reliance is sought to be placed exclusively on the reply dated 7th February 2008 already on the record. Hence, the following order. - 3 - (i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 11th February 2008 is set aside with a view to facilitate the passing of a fresh order, in compliance with the directions of this Court dated 20th December 2007; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 18th July 2008 when an opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to address such oral submissions, as the petitioner may desire to advance; (iii) The petitioner has stated before the court that no further reply or documentary and material (save and except that which is referred to in the dated 6th February, 2008) will be filed; (iv) The respondent shall pass a fresh order in terms of the directions of this Court dated 20th December 2007 by 31st August 2008; and (v) All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. . The Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms. Sd/- [ Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]