- (1.) W . P. (C) No. 1731 of 2006 has been preferred for quashing the order dated 31.05.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner -II, Ranchi whereby according to the petitioner, respondent has refused to review the order passed in exercise of power under Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on the ground that there is no provision for review. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent not to take any coercive steps till disposal of Appeal No. 441 of 2003.
(2.) W . P. (C) No. 5614 of 2008 has been preferred by the same petitioner for assailing the letter dated 26.09.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner -II, Ranchi whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 46,35,391/ - towards the interest under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and for further direction to release the bank accounts of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner firm was alloted code no. BR/16 by the respondent -EPF Organization. It is an Industrial Unit engaged in manufacturing and selling cement located at Khalari. It is stated by the petitioner that order dated 28.01.2004 has been passed by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of power under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act for the period of 1/93 to 9/93 and an amount of Rs. 76,05,930/ - besides interest under Section 7Q of the Act was assessed. The petitioner requested by filing an application to review of the said order, but the said application was refused, which is impugned in the first writ petition. In the second writ petition, the petitioner came before this Court with a plea that during the pendency of the first writ petition, in which respondents were directed to file counter affidavit and further restrained from taking any coercive steps, letter dated 26.09.2008 has been passed. The contention of the petitioner is that he had made a request before Director (Recovery) for giving facility of installment in order to liquidate the outstanding dues subject to the terms and conditions, whereupon the Director (Recovery) has directed the petitioner to deposit the outstanding dues in 36 installments @ Rs. Six Lakhs per installment in respect of the entire demand. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner establishment is a sick unit under BIFR so it was represented on behalf of the petitioner before the CBT through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner for waiver of the damages imposed under Section 14B of the Act.
(3.) THE respondents have appeared and contested the claim of the petitioner and justified the issuance of notice by way of Annexure -A to the counter affidavit in W. P. (C) No. 5614 of 2008. It is submitted that the demand of damages under Section 14B of the Act has been passed after due notice and hearing to the petitioner assessing a sum of Rs. 1,04,99,857.00/ - under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act, 1952 and further interest under Section 7Q shall continue to accrue from due date till the date of deposit.;