OSWAL VANASPATI AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES Vs. TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent No. 2, vide order, dated 14th October, 1977, annexure P-5, has levied on the petitioner damages amounting to Rs. 10,422. 65 under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act"), on account of default committed by it in delaying payment of contributions under the Act and the Scheme made thereunder in respect of the period specified therein. Recovery certificate dated 25th July, 1978, annexure P-16, issued by respondent No. 2 and the notice of demand, annexure P-17, issued by respondent No. 1, requiring the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,209 which is alleged to be recoverable in pursuance of the impugned order, annexure P-5, and notifying further that if the amount is not so deposited, warrants of arrest and attachment of the property for the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under Sections 69 and 70 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act shall be taken, have also been impugned. Prayer is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid orders and notices.

(2.) THE petition has been opposed by respondent No. 2 and a written statement has been filed by him.

(3.) THE first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before its reply to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent, had been finally rejected and the impugned order, annexure P-5, was passed. The defence of respondent No. 2 is that no opportunity of personal hearing was required to be given as adequate opportunity had already been afforded by issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner. This defence is, however, not sustainable in view of the following observations of I. S. Tiwana, J. , in Civil Writ Petition No. 3589 of 1978, Subbash Talkies v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, decided on 7th November, 1983: