VARHADI THAT Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUNDS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sundaram, learned Counsel for respondent. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) BY the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29. 5. 2007 made by the Assistant Provident Fund commissioner, Nagpur, on the application filed by the petitioner dated 28. 5. 2007 for permission to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer.

(3.) FACTS : the petitioner runs an establishment by name " Varhadi That". There is one more establishment, namely Varhadi That Garden restaurant situated in different premises altogether and in a name of different proprietor with independent business and licence. On 3. 2. 2006 an order was made based upon the inspection that the two units are owned by one and the same person and it is on that basis the liability was fixed. In Writ Petition no. 1732 of 06 this Court by the order dated 8. 11. 2006 directed a fresh enquiry. In the meanwhile, Mr. O. K. Mahajan and A. B. Sharma the Enforcement Officers of the provident Fund Organization made inspection and also filed a report. Having gone through the said report, the petitioner filed application on 28. 5. 2007 requesting for permission to cross-examine the Enforcement officers. That application came to be rejected. Hence, this writ petition.