Bombay High Court
The Central Provident Fund ... vs Municipal Council Gangapur ... on 7 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/52/2016+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3412 OF 2016
Municipal Council, Gangapur
Through its Chief Officer,
Nanda Y. Gaikwad,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service
R/o Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Central Provident
Fund Commissioner,
9th Floor, Mayur Bhavan,
Cannaught Circle,
New Delhi.
2. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner - II,
Sub Regional Office,
Plot No.2, Town Center,
CIDCO, Aurangabad.
3. The Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner - II,
Sub Regional Office,
Plot No.2, Town Center,
CIDCO, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Kakde Yuvraj V.
Respondents 1 and 2 : Deleted
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri Chaudhary K.B.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: October 07, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
WP/52/2016+
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition
is taken up for final disposal.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits on instructions
that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not necessary parties and prays for
leave to delete.
5.
Deletion is permitted. As such, Civil Application does not
survive and stands disposed off.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Review
Application filed under Section 7B of the the Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("1952 Act") has been
rejected without even issuance of notice of hearing to the
petitioner / applicant.
7. As such, the petitioner did not get the opportunity of
addressing the mind of the respondent.
8. Shri Chaudhary strenuously submits that the review application
dated 2.12.2015 was filed only to avoid the payment under Section 7-
A and to avoid approaching the appellate Tribunal at Delhi under
WP/52/2016+
Section 7-I since, it mandates depositing of 75% of the assessed
amount under Section 7-O. He, therefore, submits that the entire
amount of Rs.16,03,907/- should be deposited by the petitioner in
the respondent office as a precondition for hearing Section 7-B
application.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
10.
It cannot be ignored that 42 hearings were afforded to the
petitioner before the order under Section 7-A was passed.
11. In so far as hearing on Section 7-B application is concerned,
this Court has concluded in it's judgment dated 19.9.2016 delivered
in Writ Petition No. 9676 of 2016 in between M/s Ashmit Motors Vs.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nasik that a Review
Application under Section 7-B requires a hearing and the party
concerned ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
12. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed and
the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 is quashed and set aside on the
following conditions:-
(A) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of
Rs.7,75,000/- with the respondent / office at Aurangabad,
on/or before 25.11.2016.
WP/52/2016+
(B) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent /
office on 18.11.2016 at 11.00 am and thereafter, shall
remain present on the dates on which the matter would be
posted for hearing by the respondent / APFC Aurangabad.
(C) If the above said amount is not deposited as directed,
the liberty for a hearing granted by this order, shall stand
recalled and the respondent would then be at liberty to seek
execution of the order dated 20.10.2015 passed under
Section 7-A of the Act.
(D) The petitioner shall not seek an extension of time for
depositing the said amount.
(E) The petitioner shall refrain from seeking
adjournments on trivial and unreasonable grounds.
13. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
