A.K.Mitra, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers: a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to give effect and/or further effect to annexure 'PI' to the petition. b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the Respondents to produce the records of the case and after perusal of the same to quash the same.
(2.) Affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Affidavit-in-reply to the said opposition was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Supplementary Affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner and it was stated in the Supplementary Affidavit that by mistake, respondent No. 5 that is the Presiding Officer, EPF Tribunal hadn't been shown as party/respondent in the writ petition. It was stated that actually this is a typographical mistake and the learned Advocate of the petitioner missed the same. Actually, when final typing of the writ petition was made the respondent No. 5 was not included and it was the fault of the Lawyer. The petitioner should not be penalised.
(3.) On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 an application being CAN 3918 of 2003 was filed. In the said application the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.;