IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13666 of 2009 Nisheeth Jaiswal, Son of D.D. Jaiswal, Resident of Mohalla 1/117, New Patliputra Colony, Patna- 800013 ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bihar Regional Office, R-Block Road No.-6, Patna-1. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund, Bihar Regional Office, R-Block Road No.-6, Patna-1. 3. Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bihar Regional Office, R- Block Road No.-6, Patna-1. ------ Respondents. ----------- 5 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and Annexure-1. By Annexure-1, the tenant of the petitioner has been asked to pay the provident fund assets for the year 2003-05 under Section 8 F (3) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The facts are that the petitioner was running a business known as M/s Jupiter Electricals. The industry of the petitioner closed down in the year 1999. It would be clear from letter dated 5.1.2000 which was received on 6.1.2000 that intimation was given to the Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization. Thereafter the petitioner was 2 allegedly served a notice to appear in the case. The order impugned indicates that notice was issued to the petitioner which is disputed by the petitioner. In any view of the matter it is apparent that the Commissioner has not taken into account the letter dated 5.1.2000 by which intimation was sent to the Commissioner regarding closure of Jupiter Electricals. The fact that the industry has closed down should have been taken into account, enquiry made and thereafter the Commissioner could have proceeded to pass an order. In this case it appears that there is a complete non-application of mind and without examining the records the order has been passed. The impugned order also indicates that there was a complaint from the twenty employees of the establishment. The employees have not been named or examined while passing the order. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the order impugned contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit has to be quashed. As a consequence of quashing Annexure-A the coercive measures taken by the Commissioner, 3 Employees Provident Fund Organization vide Annexure-1 is also quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner to make an enquiry. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Commissioner within a period of one month on receipt of a copy of this order. This writ application is thus, disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)