Telangana High Court
WP/8999/2006 of M/s.Wordsworth School, 9-1-135/B/159, Raghavendra Vs The Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner (CANDR) Regional on 22 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.8999 OF 2006 DATED: 22nd December, 2006. Between : M/s. Wordsworth School ... Petitioner And The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R), Regional Officer, 3-4-763, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-27 and another. ....
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.8999 OF 2006
DATED: 22ndDecember, 2006.
Between :
M/s. Wordsworth School ... Petitioner
And
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R),Regional Officer, 3-4-763,Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Barkatpura,Hyderabad-27 and another. .... Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION NO.8999 OF 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the 1st’respondent dated6-1-2005 thereby rejecting the petitioners-applicationunder Section 7B of the Employees Provident Funds andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’) for reviewof---the order of assessmentdated 3092004 made under Section 7A of----the Act for the period from 2291997 to3132004.
-The petitioner states that the order under Section 7A of the Act----dated 3092004 was served on it on 6102004 and it made anapplication for review under Section 7-B of the Act on 11-11-2004within 45 days prescribed under the Statute.Since there was noresponse, the petitioner addressed a reminder dated 21-12-2004specifically referring to the original review petition dated11-11-2004.However, the 1strespondent without referring to the originalReview application had passed the impugned order merelyon thebasis of the reminder dated21-12-2004 thereby concluding that theReview petition which was filed aftera lapse of 45 days cannot beentertained.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Counsel appearing for therespondents and having perused acopy of the Review application filed in Form-9 dated11-11-2004Ifind force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitionerthat the impugned order was passed on an erroneous assumptionthat the Review applicationwas filed on 21-12-2004, whereas it wasactually presented on 11-11-2004well within 45 days from the date of-serviceof order under Section 7A of the Act.
Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and theapplication for Review requires considerationon merits.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6-1-2005 is set aside andthe Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1strespondent toconsider the review application of the petitioner dated 11-11-2004 onmerits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs.
_______________G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 22-12-2006gbs
BIRTHDAY FUNCTION
DATE : 10-12-2006
TIME : 6.30 pm
DINNER : 7.30 pm onwards
VENUE : L.I.C. COMMUNITY HALL,
MEHDIPATNAM.