Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Gorelal Dubey vs Regonal Provident Fund Comm. on 30 November, 2016
:: 1 ::
WP-28734-2003
(M/S GORELAL DUBEY Vs REGONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMM.)
30-11-2016.
None for the petitioner, even in the second round.
Shri J.K. Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks following reliefs-
(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order-dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent as also show cause notice and arrest warrant dated 17.10.2002 (Annexure P/10) be quashed.
(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent to allow the facility for making the payment by installment.
(iii) issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Responding to the notice issued, respondent has filed response wherein in paragraph 2 and 3, it is stated :-
2. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner against the aforesaid order preferred an appeal under Section 71 of the Act before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the EPFAT') which was registered as ATA No.672/8/02 and in absence of Presiding Officer of EPFAT, the present petition was filed.
:: 2 ::
3. It is respectfully submitted that during the pendency of present petition, the petitioner has deposited the amount thus assessed to the tune of Rs.1,29,126/- in the year 2004 on different dates. However, the EPFAT, New Delhi vide order-dated 11.7.2011 has remanded the matter back to the answering respondent to extend the petitioner the benefit of pre-discovery period by waiving the P.F. share of employees for the pre-discovery period.
In view whereof, no cause now survives in this petition. Consequently, petition is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.
(SANJAY YADAV)
vinod JUDGE