Honble SHARMA, J.–This court vide order dated May 3, 2002 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1028/98 remanded the case back to the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Jaipur (in short `CRPF) for making fresh inquiry in the matter and pass appropriate order. An order thereafter passed by the CRPF on February 17, 2004 which is under challenge in writ petition No. 2020/2004. Order dated March 4, 2004 under Section 8-F of the Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `P.F. Act) has been called in question by the petitioner in writ petition No. 1424/2004. Replies have been filed by CRPF in both the writ petitions. (2). I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the impugned orders. (3). It appears that the petitioner had produced all relevant record which was in its possession but information of labour engaged by the contractors relating to number of working days and wages paid to them by the contractors could not be furnished and request was made by the petitioner to implead the contractors and summon the relevant documents which were in possession of the contractors. In such a situation it was incumbent on the CRPF to conduct an enquiry under Section 7A of the PF Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret Section 7A in Food Corporation of India vs. P.F. Commissioner (1), and it was indicated in para 9 thus:- ``It will be seen from the above provisions that the Commissioner is authorised to enforce attendance in person and also to examine any person on oath. He has the power requiring the discovery and production of documents. This power was given to the Commissioner to decide not abstract question of law, but only to determine actual concrete differences in payment of contribution and other dues by identifying the workmen. The Commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion. That is the legal duty of the Commissioner. It would be failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings requests for summoning evidence from a particular person. (4). The Commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion. That is the legal duty of the Commissioner. It would be failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings requests for summoning evidence from a particular person. (4). A look at the order dated February 17, 2004 demonstrates that the CRPF in not impleading the contractors and summoning the information of labour engaged by the Contractors relating to number of working days and wages paid to them by the contractors, failed to discharge his legal duty to collect all evidence and collate all material before arriving at the conclusion. (5). I, therefore, allow the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated February 17, 2004 and March 4, 2004. The matter stands remitted to the CRPF to dispose it afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made. The petitioner shall appear before CRPF to receive further instructions on April 28, 2004. The CRPF shall dispose of the matter within six months thereafter. Costs easy.