NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD BHATAPARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(2.) Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a local body constituted under the provisions of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1964. Proceedings under Sec. 7A of EPFMP Act, 1952 were initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 30/5/2016. He further submits that due to Covid-19 outburst, petitioner was being provided video-conferencing link before every hearing to appear virtually before the authority concerned. He contends that both the cases were listed on 19/4/2022 where petitioner appeared virtually and thereafter cases were set for hearing on 28/4/2022 but on the said date, neither virtual link was provided suo-moto by the respondent No. 2 nor same was provided on specific request of the petitioner vide e-mail dtd. 28/4/2022. He further contends that subsequently on 30/4/2022, the respondent authority passed the final order in both the proceedings bearing Diary No. 50./2016 and 504/2016 without hearing the petitioner in complete violation of provisions contained in Sec. 7A(3) of EPFMP Act, 1952. He argues when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or the provisions of law have not been complied with, the writ petition would be maintainable and the alternative remedy would not be a bar in entertaining the writ petition. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd Versus State of Bihar & Ors.,2021 SCC Online SC 801. He prays to quash the order impugned.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that as many as 55 opportunities were provided to the petitioner to place on record relevant documents. He further submits that on 19/4/2022, petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 virtually and thereafter cases were fixed for final hearing on 28/4/2022 but on the said date, no one appeared on behalf of petitioner and thereafter orders impugned were passed. He contends that there is efficacious alternative remedy available to petitioner according to the provisions of Sec. 7(I) of EPFMP Act, 1952, therefore this petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.