Dalveer Bhandari ( 1 ) THIS writ petitionhasbeen preferred on behalf of thedelhi State Mineral Industrial Corporation Ltd. In this writ petition, the petitionercorporation has prayed that order dated 1. 6. 1992 be quashed. The petitioner hasfurther prayed that the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the saidorder in any manner for instituting any further proceedings in pursuance of the said- order. The petitioner-corporation is a Company incorporated under the provisionsof the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-Company is entirely a Governmentowned Company. The petitioner-corporation has become a separate and legalentity and was named as the Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation fromthe year 1986. Prior thereto, it was part of the Delhi State Industrial Developmentcorporation and was carrying out activities including mining and other connectedactivities in Delhi. In the year 1986, the petitioner-corporation was created. It isstated in the petition that the petitioner-corporation is in no way dependent uponor connected with the DSIDC, which is an independent legal entity as is clear fromthe Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of the Corporation. ( 2 ) THE Government had published a notification dated 17. 5. 1989 enhancingthe Employees Provident Fund from 8. 33 per cent to 10 per cent as per thenotification. ( 3 ) MS. Anusuiya Salwan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner-corporation is not carrying on the activities mentioned in theschedule and not covered by the notification. Since the petitioner is not covered bythe notification, therefore, the petitioner-corporation not under an obligation topay the 10 per cent towards the Employees Provident Fund. ( 4 ) THE notification dated 17/05/1989 regarding Employees Providentfund by which the rate has been enhanced from 8. 33% to 10% the relevant portionof the notification reads as under : "in exercise of the powers conferred by the first proviso to Section 6 of theemployees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of1952), the Central Government hereby specifies, with effect from the 1st dayof June, 1989, every establishment in the industries specified in the saidschedule, as the establishments and classes of establishments to which thesaid proviso shall apply. " ( 5 ) IT is mentioned that the notification shall be applicable to the followingcategories of mining: (a) Bauxite (b) China Clay (e) Chromite (d) Diamond (e) Dolomite (f) Graphite (g) Iron ore (h) Lignite (i) Lime stone (j) Magnetic (k) Manganese; and (1) Mica ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid notification is not applicable to the petitioner-corporation and the petitioner-Corporation is not under any obligation to pay tha enhanced rate of Employees Proyidenfc. Fund from 8. 33% to 10%. On 5/02/1992, the representative of the petitioner-corporation made submissions before the Regional Provident Fund Commis-sioner, New Delhi and submitted written submissions. In the written submissionit was categorically mentioned that the petitioner-corporation has nothing to dowith the Delhi State Industrial Corporation Limited. The petitioner-corporation byno stretch of imagination is a unit of the DSIDC. ( 7 ) IT was categorically stated that the petitioner-corporation does not mineany of the products/minerals stated in Serial No. 67 aforementioned in thenotification. The petitioner-corporation was engaged only in mining of what isknown in common parlance as badarpur , and technically as Quartzite sand,yamuna sand and Stone (Jellys) used in the construction activi ties are the peti tioner smining ventures. The Regional Fund Commissioner has mentioned in the order tha tthe petitioner-corporation i. e. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporationlimited wasoriginallypartof the Delhi Stateindustrialdevelopmentcorporation,dsidc. It is also mentioned that the DSIDC is covered under the schedule"commercial and Training Establishment" and rate of contribution has been enhanced to 10% to the establishment covered under schedule "trading andcommercial Establishment" and accordingly the department has claimed that theestablishment is required to contribute at enhanced rate. The Regional Providentfund Commissioner has mentioned the fact that the petitioner-corporation is aseparate legal entity and is of no significance for the purpose of applicability toenhanced rate contribution and the prayer of the petitioner-corporation wasrejected and directed the petitioner-corporation to pay at the enhanced rate. Thefact that the petitioner-corporation is not mining any of the products/mineralsstated in Serial No. 67 of the notification is not disputed. ( 8 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that by the order of this Court dated1. 8. 1995, an opportunity was given to the respondents to place on record, whetherin fact the petitioners are carrying on the activities which are included in theschedule. Order dated 1. 8. ( 8 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that by the order of this Court dated1. 8. 1995, an opportunity was given to the respondents to place on record, whetherin fact the petitioners are carrying on the activities which are included in theschedule. Order dated 1. 8. 1995 reads as under: "counsel for the respondent seeks time to ascertain whether main objectsmentioned in the Memorandum of Association are being undertaken by thepetitioner or not. Request allowed. Let her file affidavit, if she so likes, withinfour weeks with advance copy to Counsel for the petitioner, who may filethe counter-affidavit, if any, within four weeks thereafter. List this application as well as main writ petition for final disposal on 2 6/10/1995 at the end of "after Notice Misc. Matters". ( 9 ) ON 26/10/1995, further four weeks time was granted to therespondent but the affidavit was not filed. On 1 1/03/1996, one week s furthertime was granted and till date, no affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for therespondents submits that even today she is not in a position to file an affidavit thatthe petitioners are covered by the Schedule of the notification. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, when the petitioner-corporation is not mining any of theproducts/minerals stated in Serial No. 67 of the notification in that event whetherthe liability of enhanced E. P. A. rate can be made applicable to the petitioner-corporation only on the ground that once upon a time the petitioner-corporationwas part of the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation is the only questionfor adjudication in this petition. ( 11 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused thenotification issued by the respondent. The petitioner-corporation was part of thedelhi State Industrial Development Corporation until 1986. In the year 1986, thepetitioner-corporation became a separate legal entity and was named as the Delhistate Mineral Development Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner-corporationis not mining any of the products/minerals stated in Serial No. 67 of the notificationand is engaged in mining of Badarpur technically known as Quartzite sand,yamuna sand and Stone (Jellys) used in construction activities. ( 12 ) THE petitioner-corporation is admittedly a separate and distinct legalentity since 1986. The obligation of enhanced payment of employees provident fundcannot be imposed on the petitioner-corporation of the ground that one upon a time (before 1986) the petitioner-corporation was a part of the DSIDC (Delhi Stateindustrial Development Corporation ). ( 12 ) THE petitioner-corporation is admittedly a separate and distinct legalentity since 1986. The obligation of enhanced payment of employees provident fundcannot be imposed on the petitioner-corporation of the ground that one upon a time (before 1986) the petitioner-corporation was a part of the DSIDC (Delhi Stateindustrial Development Corporation ). It is wholly uncontroversial position thatsince 1986 the petitioner-corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity. ( 13 ) IN this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, andi order accordingly. The impugned notification shall stand quashed as far as thepetitioner Corporation is concerned. In the fact and circumstances of this case, Idirect the parties to bear the costs.