Telangana High Court
WP/26564/2006 of M/s. The Andhra Starch Manufacturing, Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and - on 22 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26564 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent dated 19.10.2006/2.11.2006, whereunder, the application filed
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.26564 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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused thematerial on record.
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by therespondent dated 19.10.2006/2.11.2006, whereunder, the applicationfiled by the petitioner under sub-section (4) of Section 7A of theEmployees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(for short “the Act”), was rejected.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with a noticedated 26.4.2006, fixing the date of hearing on 22.5.2006, for theenquiry under Section 7-A of the Act. Since the petitioner was notpresent, the respondent proceeded with the enquiry and passed anorder of assessment under Section 7A of the Act, dated 24.5.2006.Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under sub-section (4) ofSection 7A of the Act, seeking to set aside the ex parte order, statingthat during that period he was sick and was unable to travel. A DoctorCertificate was also enclosed to the application. The said applicationwas rejected under the impugned order, which is under challenge inthis writ petition.
It is true that when the said application was posted for enquiryon 16.10.2006, the petitioner was not present. However, therespondent is bound to consider the material placed on record andrecord a finding, whether any sufficient cause was shown for theabsence of the petitioner. Since the impugned order does not reflectsuch consideration and was not supported by reasons, I am of theopinion that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, theimpugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent to consider the application of thepetitioner made under sub-section (4) of Section 7A of the Act afreshand pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar submittedthat the petitioner would appear before the respondent on 29.12.2006at 11.00 a.m. The same is placed on record and appropriate orders bepassed within two weeks thereafter. No costs.
22[nd] December, 2006.Issue CC by Tuesday.(BO)Kgr ______________
(G. ROHINI, J.)
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.26564 OF 2006
22[nd] December, 2006.
Between:M/s The Andhra Starch ManufacturingCo., represented by its Proprietor-M.B. Sivanandam. .. Petitioner. AndThe Assistant Provident Fund CommissionerAnd Authority u/Section 7(A) of theEmployees Provident Fund andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,Kadapa. .. Respondent.