Judgment S.N.P.SINGH, J. 1. M/s. India Mica and Micanite Industries Ltd., has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated the 18th of November, 1967, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent No. 1) under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). A copy of the impugned order has been made Annexure T to the writ application. The petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the certificate proceeding which has been started in pursuance of the said order and is pending before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh (Case No. 63 of 1967-68). 2. The material facts for the disposal of this writ application may be stated as follows. The petitioner Company has a micanite factory in which heat resisting micanite sheets, commutator micanite sheets, moulding micanite sheets, flexible micanite sheets and micafolium are manufactured. It appears that on the 12th of September, 1960, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, had informed the petitioner Company that its factory was covered by the Act with effect from the 30th of September, 1960. The petitioner Company, however, took the stand that the factory was not covered under the Act. On a close examination of the various products manufactured by the petitioners factory, the Government of India took the decision that the petitioners factory was engaged in the production of electrical insulating materials and as such was covered under the electrical, mechanical or general engineering products an item of Schedule 1 to the Act. The petitioner Company was informed of the said decision by a letter dated the 20th of January, 1965. Thereupon the petitioner Company was asked by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, by a letter dated the 12th February, 1965, to take steps to clear all the past provident fund dues from November, 1960 to date to avoid any legal complications. The above-mentioned decision of the Government of India and the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were challenged by the petitioner Company in C. W. J. C. No. 886 of 1965. The above-mentioned decision of the Government of India and the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were challenged by the petitioner Company in C. W. J. C. No. 886 of 1965. In that writ application two contentions were raised, namely, (1) that the Company was not engaged in manufacturing any electrical engineering products and as such the Act was not applicable to it; and (2) that the demand for provident fund contribution with retrospective effect from November, 1960, was illegal. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Company were rejected by a Bench of this Court which heard that writ application. It was held that the Act became applicable to the petitioner Company from November, 1960 and that the claim upon the petitioner Company to take action to clear off all the past provident fund dues from November, 1960, to date was legal and warranted. The writ application was accordingly dismissed on the 13th of December, 1966. 3. After the disposal of the writ application, the Provident Fund Inspector visited the office of the petitioner Company twice and demanded records of the establishment from the Accountant for inspection and assessment but the records were not produced before him. The Inspector made a report to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna, on the 4th of August, 1967. A copy of that report has been made Annexure A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. Thereafter a notice was sent to the petitioner by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the Act fixing the 31st of October, 1967, for enquiry. The petitioner Company after receipt of the notice filed a petition on the 31st of October, 1967, for extension of time but the prayer was disallowed and assessment was made under Section 7-A of the Act by the impugned order dated the 18th of November, 1967, for the period November, 1960 to June, 1967. The amount of the total employees and employers shares of contributions payable by the employer under paragraph 38 read with paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme was assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. The administrative charges payable by the petitioner Company under the said Scheme for the said period were assessed at Rs. 750/-. The amount of the total employees and employers shares of contributions payable by the employer under paragraph 38 read with paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme was assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. The administrative charges payable by the petitioner Company under the said Scheme for the said period were assessed at Rs. 750/-. It appears that the petitioner was informed by a letter dated the 20th of November, 1967, that its prayer for time had been disallowed and the assessment would be made ex parte. A copy of the order of assessment (Annexure 1) was also sent to the petitioner Company subsequently. The petitioner Company thereupon requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to review the order and to make final assessment after examining the records of the petitioner Company. It is alleged that on the directions of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the records of the petitioner Company were examined by an Inspector of the Department and the latter made final calculation as per his letter dated the 16th of March, 1970 (Annexure 5). The petitioner Company paid off the entire dues from September, 1960 to February, 1970 in accordance with the statement of dues attached to the said letter. It is alleged that in spite of the payments made by the petitioner Company, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has filed a certificate case for realisation of a sum of Rs. 25,750/- on the basis of the provisional assessment (Annexure 1) and it has been numbered as Case 63 of 1967-68. As stated in the application, the petitioner Company moved both the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Bihar, for the withdrawal of the certificate case but the prayer of the petitioner Company was refused. The petitioner Company thereupon filed the present writ application in this Court. 4. Mr. As stated in the application, the petitioner Company moved both the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Bihar, for the withdrawal of the certificate case but the prayer of the petitioner Company was refused. The petitioner Company thereupon filed the present writ application in this Court. 4. Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the following contentions, namely, (1) that the order (Annexure 1) on the face of it shows that it was only a provisional assessment and as such the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was not legally justified in taking steps for the recovery of the amount by taking recourse to a certificate proceeding on the basis of the provisional assessment; (2) that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner Company of representing its case before the order determining the amount due from the petitioner Company was made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner; and (3) that the order of assessment is illegal because the amount of contribution which has been determined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is not based on any cogent materials. 5. In the assessment order (Annexure 1) it has been stated as follows: "Therefore, on the basis of the records/documents available with me, I, S. N. Verma, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, 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 be Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only. The administrative charges payable by the defaulter under the Scheme for the same period are assessed as Rs. 750.00 (Rupees Seven hundred & fifty) only subject to review on the production of records." It was contended on behalf of the petitioner Company that the expression "subject to review on the production of records" used in the assessment order clearly shows that the assessment was only provisional and final assessment had to be made after the production of records. There is substance in this contention. It appears that when the petitioner Company did not produce the papers before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for determination of the amount of contributions, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner tentatively assessed the amount at Rs. 25,000/- to the final assessment on examination of the records. It was contended by Mr. There is substance in this contention. It appears that when the petitioner Company did not produce the papers before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for determination of the amount of contributions, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner tentatively assessed the amount at Rs. 25,000/- to the final assessment on examination of the records. It was contended by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, that there is no provision in the Act for determination of provisional assessment and as such the order (Annexure 1) has to be taken as final assessment under Section 7-A of the Act. There does not appear to be any substance in this contention. The mere fact that there is no provision in the Act for provisional assessment, the impugned order cannot be held to be an order of final assessment under Section 7-A of the Act when the order on the face of it shows that the final determination of the provident fund contributions payable by the petitioner Company had to be made on looking into the relevant papers. A similar point arose for consideration in the case of Radhakrishan Narayandas v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 Madh Pra 157. In that case the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had issued notices to the petitioners of that case under Section 7-A of the Act stating the amount which, according to the Commissioner, was payable by them and asking them to show cause why a final order determining the amount payable by them in respect of their establishments should not be made. It was held in that case that the competent authority is not precluded from making its own estimate of the amount payable by the employer before issuing him a notice in terms of sub-section (3) because there is in the Act no provision for determination of provisional assessment. Although the facts of that case are not exactly similar to the facts of the instant case, the decision in that case lends support to the contention of the petitioner Company that a provisional assessment can be made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner although there is no specific provision under the Act. Although the facts of that case are not exactly similar to the facts of the instant case, the decision in that case lends support to the contention of the petitioner Company that a provisional assessment can be made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner although there is no specific provision under the Act. In my opinion, when the impugned order of assessment (Annexure 1) on the face of it shows that it is not final in the sense that it is subject to review on examination of the relevant papers, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner should have made a final order of assessment after examining the relevant papers of the petitioner Company. Since the order of assessment has not been made final, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was not legally justified to initiate a certificate proceeding against the petitioner Company on the basis of Annexure 1. In the Madhya Pradesh case, referred to above, also a recovery proceeding had been started without making any final order. It was held that the Commissioner was not justified in initiating recovery proceeding on the strength of the provisional determination of the amount due from the employer. The certificate proceeding, therefore, which has been started against the petitioner Company on the basis of Annexure 1 is not valid and justified. 6 For the foregoing reasons, I accept the first contention which has been raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. As this application must succeed on the first point, it is not necessary to consider the other two points which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner Company. It is made clear that as there is no illegality in the order (Annexure 1) it cannot be quashed. But the certificate proceeding which has been started against the petitioner Company on the basis of Annexure 1 must be quashed. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the certificate proceeding which has been started against the petitioner Company and is pending before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh (Case No. 63 of 1967-68) is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. 9. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the certificate proceeding which has been started against the petitioner Company and is pending before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh (Case No. 63 of 1967-68) is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. 9. I may observe before parting with this Judgment that it will be open to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent No. 1) to pass the final order of assessment under Section 7-A of the Act in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner Company to produce the relevant papers. H.L.AGRAWAL, J. 10 I agree.