Judgment NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. This is a writ application for quashing an order of assessment dated May 6, 1968, made under Sec.7-A of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for quashing a certificate proceeding pending in the court of the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh, against the petitioner for realisation of the amount determined under the aforesaid assessment order. A copy of the aforesaid order of assessment is annexure 2 to the writ application. 2. The case of the petitioner is that for the period July, 1967, to march, 1968, the petitioner was served with a notice to appear on april 30, 1968, with the necessary papers, registers, etc. , in connection with the calculation of the amount payable by the petitioner under the scheme framed under the Act and the petitioner appeared on april 30, 1968, and produced all relevant records before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The books and papers produced by the petitioner were seized by the authority concerned and a list of seizure duly signed, was given to the representative of the petitioner a copy whereof is annexure 1 to the writ application. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner was never given any opportunity to appear before the authority concerned in connection with the assessment in question and suddenly, he received the impugned assessment order, assessing Rs.7,930 and a sum of Rs.237.90, as the contribution and administrative charges respectively, payable by the petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold, firstly that, he was never given any opportunity to appear before the authority concerned, during the enquiry in connection with the assessment of the relevant period, to which he was entitled under the provisions of Section 7-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in this connection, drawn our attention to sub-section (3) of Sec.7-A of the Act, which is as follows:- "(3) No order determining the amount due from any employer shall be made under sub-section (1), unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case." 4. According to the learned counsel, the said sub-section enjoins that the employer has to be given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case and in absence thereof any order of assessment made is null and void. According to the learned counsel, the said sub-section enjoins that the employer has to be given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case and in absence thereof any order of assessment made is null and void. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order per se is not a speaking order, inasmuch as the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not given the basis of the calculation of the amount. Under the Scheme framed under the provisions of the Act. the amount of contribution liable to be paid by the employer has to be calculated on certain basis and the authority calculating the said amount has to be determined on the materials produced before him as to what should be the exact amount which the employer is liable to pay. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has simply stated :- "i,. . . . . . hereby assess the amount of the total employees and employers shares of contributions payable by the employer under para.38 read with para.26 of the Scheme for the said period to e Rs.7,930.00 (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and thirty)only." 5. This, per se, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is arbitrary and not sanctioned by law. 6. So far as the first point is concerned, it is true that it was incumbent on the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, while making the assessment, as enjoined by Sec.7-A (3) of the Act. But, in the impugned order, it is mentioned that one Shri R. K. Prasad, an authorised official of the factory establishment had appeared before him with all the relevant records in connection with the enquiry. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said statement relates to the production of the books of accounts on April 30, 1968, when they were seized and seizure list (annexure 1) was prepared and given to the said representative. Thereafter during the course of the assessment, no opportunity was given from the impugned order, it is not very clear as to whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, while making a reference to the presence of the authorised official, meant during the course of the enquiry or only for the purpose of production of records on April 30, 1968. Thereafter during the course of the assessment, no opportunity was given from the impugned order, it is not very clear as to whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, while making a reference to the presence of the authorised official, meant during the course of the enquiry or only for the purpose of production of records on April 30, 1968. Any way, this point is not of much importance, in view of the decision over the second point. So far as the second point is concerned, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A bare reference to Sec.7-A of the Act makes it clear that the proceeding of assessment before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is a quasi-judicial proceeding and under sub-section (2) of the said section, the enquiry has to be conducted and the said Commissioner has the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil procedure for trying a suit in respect of matters indicated therein. Moreover, in view of sub-section (4) of the said Sec.7-A any order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is final and there is no appeal or revision. Any determination under the said section is a liability on the part of the employer for which drastic action can be taken, like certificate proceeding, etc. In that view of the matter, it is incumbent upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, while passing an assessment order, to give a detailed calculation and the basis on which the amount held to be payable by the employer has been arrived at. Admittedly, in the present case, no basis has been indicated. Even what is the total number of employees is not mentioned in the first part of the order. He has simply said that the petitioner has employed 50 or more persons on October 31, 1960. Admittedly, in the present case, no basis has been indicated. Even what is the total number of employees is not mentioned in the first part of the order. He has simply said that the petitioner has employed 50 or more persons on October 31, 1960. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Chatram Agarwalla V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa (1972 1 L. L. J.603), wherein the learned Judge had to consider a similar point as to whether an order of assessment made under Sec.7-A of the Act should be speaking one and it was held that if the order is not speaking one and it does not indicate the basis of the calculation on which the quantum of contribution payable by the employer was determined, that itself is a ground for the order being quashed by issuance of a writ of certiorari. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, however, urged that the Regional Fund Commissioner has applied his mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case and has determined the amount on the basis of the registers and accounts produced before him. In my opinion, the way the order of assessment has been made, it is fit to be quashed by this Court. 7. As it has been held that the order of assessment itself is illegal and arbitrary, in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the certificate proceeding pending before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh, to proceed. In that view of the matter, the assessment order (annexure 2) as well as the certificate proceeding in Case No.8 of 1969-70, pending in the Court of the Certificate Officer, hazaribagh, have to be quashed by a writ of certiorari, in the result, the application is allowed and the order of assessment (annexure 2) and the aforesaid Certificate Case No.8 of 1969-70, of the Court of the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh, are quashed and the case is remanded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to proceed in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to present his case during the course of assessment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.