JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---By this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 17-11-1992 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 holding that the provisions of the Act are applicable to M/s. Ellora Stone Co., M/s. Royal Marbels and M/s. A-One Cement Concrete Works w.e.f. 30-4-1986. 2. The principal grievance of the petitioner M/s. A-One Cement Concrete Works is that before making the order, the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner did not issue any notice to the petitioner. In the petition a categorical statement has been made that a finding has been recorded by the respondent that the petitioner A-One Cement Concrete Works, M/s. Ellora Stone Co., and M/s. Royal Marbels is one unit for the purpose of the Act without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Perusal of the order shows that in the order the respondent has nowhere stated that notice was issued to M/s. A-One Cement Concrete Works before making the order, which is impugned in this petition. It appears that the notice was issued to M/s. Ellora Stone Co. It is the case of the petitioner that had notice been issued to the petitioner it would have placed material before the respondent to demonstrate that it cannot be treated as one unit as of Ellora Stone Co. and Royal Marbles. Now it is pertinent to note here that though the respondent is served the respondent has not cared to file any affidavit disputing the allegations made in the petition. In the absence of any affidavit being filed by the respondent disputing the allegations made in the petition, I have no alternative but to accept the allegations made by the petitioner. As the order impugned in the petition has been passed by the respondent in breach of the principles of natural justice without granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard the order impugned in the petition is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the petition dated 17-11-92 passed by the respondent is set-aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 4. It is however, made clear that the respondent is free to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition allowed.