S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 17.8.2012 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,54,884/ - and order dated 2.12.2013 whereby, liability under Sec. 7 -A and Sec. 7 -Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been made, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner claims that he purchased land at Kanderbera, P.O. & P.S. Chandil and he was running a Motel in the name and style of M/s. Silvercent Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2005, the said resort was closed and about 2.05 acres land consisting structure thereon was leased out to one Sanjiv Kumar Singh on monthly rent of Rs. 17,500/ - with other charges. An agreement was also executed on 17.8.2004 with the said Sanjiv Kumr Singh for running M/s. Silvercent Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for 11 months. The lessee changed the name and he started M/s. Vrindavan Gardens which was allotted P.F. Code No. JH/14331 w.e.f. 25.1.2005. Finally, the said Sanjiv Kumar Singh also could not run the restaurant and the property was let out to one Sanjay Kumar Mukherjee vide lease agreement dated 27.2.2007 for a period of 11 months. Thereafter, Sanjay Kumar Mukherjee also left the premises and it was given to one Umesh Kumar Pathak with whom agreement dated 1.4.2008 was executed. The petitioner further states that the property was leased out to one Bikash Dutt for the period between 1.11.2008 and 30.2.2009 and thereafter to Sanjit Kumar Dutta for the period between 1.5.2011 to 31.3.2012. A notice was issued to Bikash Dutta on 10.6.2009 in the name of M/s. Vrindavan Restaurant and he submitted reply on 10.7.2009 asserting that he is running the hotel by employing two staffs only. On 17.8.2012, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 6,54,884/ - as dues against M/s. Vrindavan Garden Restaurant. The petitioner replied on 27.8.2012 to the Enforcement Officer, Vide letter dated 2.12.2013, the Enforcement Officer directed the petitioner to pay the said amount.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted representation, the same was not considered by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and assessment under Sec. 7 -A and interest under Sec. 7 -Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 have been determined. The learned counsel further submits that without considering the stand of the petitioner, the Enforcement Officer has issued letter dated 17.8.2012 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,54,884/ -. A perusal of representation dated 27.8.2012 discloses that the petitioner asserted that he has not been running M/s. Vrindavan Garden, rather the premises was given to different persons. However, it does not appear that the petitioner in support of the said plea, produced any document before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. It further appears that in spite of assessment on 24.5.2010, the petitioner did not take further steps in the matter and accordingly, a certificate case has been initiated. The petitioner in response to notice dated 17.8.2012, simply wrote a letter disowning the liability without producing documents in support of the plea taken by him. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 lays down elaborate procedure which provides remedy of appeal also. The petitioner though could have filed objection and availed remedy of appeal however, he has approached this Court with a plea, which was not established by him before the authority. I find no substance in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.;