Shivaji Education Society Through President Shri. Kiranrao Ramrao Sarnaik, Washim And Another v. Assistant Provident Commissioner, Raghuraj Archade, Akola
16-WP-3432-16,27-17 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3432 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.27 OF 2017 Shivaji Education Society, Washim -vsAssistant Provident Commissioner, Akola --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'
s orders Court'
s or Judge'
s Orders.
or directions and Registrar'
s orders.
Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Shri H. N. Verma, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : October 15, 2019 The challenge raised in these writ petitions is to the orders passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the said Act). The said orders were not challenged by invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 7-I of the said Act. According to the petitioners since the liability has been saddled in a manner contrary to law, the writ petitions ought to be entertained on merits.
In Writ Petition No.2190/2016 (M/s Balaji Ginning Factory vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola) an identical challenge has been raised to the order passed under Section 7-A of the said Act without availing the remedy as provided by Section 7-I of the said Act. That challenge was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed for availing the remedy under Section 7-I of the said Act. It
16-WP-3432-16,27-17 2/2 has been held by the said judgment dated 03/09/2019 that merely because an erroneous order has been passed by the Authority which had jurisdiction to pass that order would not be a ground to entertain the writ petition especially when the statutory remedy was not availed of. Considering the similarity of challenges as raised, for reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment I am not inclined to entertain both these writ petitions.
The writ petitions are accordingly not entertained and thus dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE Asmita