JUDGMENT 1. - It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 12.2.2002 rendered in bunch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 87/2002 "Union of India v. M/s. Digamber Jain Secondary School" holding that to such Non Government Educational Institutions the Provident Fund Act is not applicable, whether the State Act or the Central Legislation. It is informed that the same view has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court also in the judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC 276 , Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School & Ors." 2. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to effectively controvert this position. However, he submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner had alternative remedy of appeal, the writ should not be entertained.I have considered the submissions. 3. In my view, in view of the law now authoritatively laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and Apex Court of the country, it is not a fit case, where after 12 years, the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of appeal. Thus, the objection of alternative remedy is negatived. 4. On merits, the controversy involved is clearly covered by the two aforesaid judgments. 5. The net result is that in view of the aforesaid judgments, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order, Annex.6 passed by RPF Commissioner is quashed with all natural consequences.Objection Overruled - Writ Petition Allowed by Applying Ration of DBCSA No. 87/02 (RAJ.). *******