P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the M. P. Go-operative Societies Act, 1960, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which arises out of the proceedings under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act 1952 with a prayer to quash the impugned orders Annexure-B dated 30-10-81 as also Annexure-A dated 22-7-82 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissionar, m. P. indore, whereby a penalty of Rs. 69,357. 30 p. has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident fund Act, 1952. ( 2 ) SHORT facts giving riss to this petition about which there is no dispute may be stated, in brief, thus: That the Petitioner-Society to which the provisions of the. said Employees Provident Fund Act, 1932 are applicable, did not deposit the dues between the period 1976 to 1981 amounting to Rs 2,94,458 approximately within the prescribed period under the provisions of the said Act, The respondent, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner on 22-8-81 annexure-C calling upon them to show cause as to why damages at such rate as deemed fit should not be imposed and recovered from the petitioner for the default committed by them as mentioned in the said notice about which admittedly there is no dispose. The petitioner deputed one Shri Vinay kumar Sharma, Time Keeper, to appear before the respondent, who sought for time which was granted from time to time, but no reply was filed, though according to the learned counsel for the petitioner said Shri Sharma had pointed out that the period for which damages were sought to be imposed related to the period during which the petitioner's predecessor in title i. e. the State Government and the State Dairy Development Corporation were the owners of the said milk supply scheme, it appears that the respondents as par Annexure-B dated 30-10-81 ordered that in view of the position explained by the representative of the petitioner, namely, Shri Sharma that the damages be levied at the normal rate and subsequently by the impugned order Annexure-A levied the penally of Rs. 69,357,30 on the petitioner which they were directed to deposit withhin 15 days from the date of the receipt of the. order which A as passed on 22-7-82. Hence this petition. 69,357,30 on the petitioner which they were directed to deposit withhin 15 days from the date of the receipt of the. order which A as passed on 22-7-82. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the damages have been levied at 100 percent without giving a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Tt is also the grievance of the petitioner that they were not responsible or liable to pay the amount of the provident fund dues for the period for which it is claimed and that as no sufficient time and opportunity was given to them to explain the reasons, the said impugned order deserves to be quashed. ( 4 ) THE respondents in their returns while denying the allegations made by the petitioner have pointed out that in fact the amount due from the petitioner was rs, 2,94,458/- which was not deposited by them within time and the damages imposed to the tune of Rs, 69,357,30 p. would not come to 100 per cent but are in fact levied to the extent of 25 per cent only. Further according to the respondents the petitioner was given more than sufficient time to submit their reply to the show cause notice which they failed and therefore, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel aad after going through the Annexures we are of opinion that there is no merit in this petition as it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have been violated in this case or that no proper and adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the reasons why the damages should not be Imposed upon them. It is also clear that damages have not been levied cent per cent, but has been levied to the tune of 25 per cent which does not appear to be unreasonable or excessive considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the long period between 1976 to 1981 during which the petitioner had committed the laches in not depositing the amount in time. The scope of Section 14-B of the said Act has been explained in the decision reported in Orango Chemical industries v. Union of India [ air 1979 SC 1803 ]. The scope of Section 14-B of the said Act has been explained in the decision reported in Orango Chemical industries v. Union of India [ air 1979 SC 1803 ]. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no adequate reasons have been given by the respondents while imposing the damages upon the petitioner. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts of which are not in dispute, we are not persuaded to agree with this submission, as the petitioner was given sufficient time and opportunity and was also heard in the matter, apart from the fact that the impugned order does not suffer from any such legal infirmity as was urged on behalf of the petitioner. It cannot be said thai the respondents without application of mind arbitrarily imposed the damages. The writing of a speaking order indicating the applicability of mind does not mean that order should be equated with the judgment of a Court containing detailed reasons. Therefore, !t is clear that the respondents have exercised the discretion properly while imposing the damages. ( 7 ) IN the result there being no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/ -. Petition dismissed. .