JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.—The legality and correctness of the dismissal of the writ petition of the appellant by the learned Single Judge on 27.2.2012 in W.P. No. 30604/11 is called in question in these appeals. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder: According to the appellants, it is a registered Society indulging in social service, activities and rendering service to rural women, children and unemployed people. The projects undertaken by the appellant is financed to (sic by) the benefactors from within and outside the country. The projects of the appellants are being implemented through voluntary and social workers and for the service rendered by the social workers and volunteers, certain sum as honorarium to cover the cost of travel as Incidental expenses and other expenditure are paid. The respondent issued a notice initiating proceedings under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 stating that the appellant establishment would cover under provision of the Act and called upon the appellant to produce the records as required under the Act. The appellant filed a detailed objections contending that the appellant-institution is exempted pursuant to a notification issued by the Central Government and in view of the exemption granted, the respondent cannot initiate proceedings under section 7A of the Act. Without considering the objections filed by the appellant in regard to the maintainability of the proceedings initiated under section 7A of the Act, an order was passed as per Annexure-E calling upon the appellant to produce the records in order to determine the amount payable by the appellant. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimoga, an appeal was filed under section 7-1 before the Appellate Tribunal, which Appeal came to be rejected as per Annexure-A dated 23.12.2010. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. Therefore, the present appeals are filed. 3. The bone of contention of the appellants before us is that the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Authority and the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimoga have committed a serious error in not considering the objections filed by the appellant in regard to the maintainability of the proceedings under section 7A of the Act. 3. The bone of contention of the appellants before us is that the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Authority and the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimoga have committed a serious error in not considering the objections filed by the appellant in regard to the maintainability of the proceedings under section 7A of the Act. The learned Single Judge without considering this aspect of the matter has proceeded with as if the appellant-institution is covered under the provisions of the Act without due respect to the notification issued by the Central Government under section 16(2) of the Act. Therefore, he contends that in all fairness all the authorities were required to consider the objections filed by the appellant in regard to the maintainability and in case the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimoga, had come to the conclusion that notification issued by the Central Government under section 16(2) of the Act, has no application, then only he would get a right or jurisdiction to call upon the appellant to produce the relevant records in order to determine the contribution payable by the appellant. Therefore, he contends that all the orders have to be set aside solely on this ground. To support his argument, he has relied upon the provisions of section 7A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which reads as hereunder: 7-A. Determination of moneys due from employers.--(1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order.-- (a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute; and (b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the (Pension) Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the establishment of the appellant would cover under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, Authorities were justified in calling upon the appellant to furnish the records in order to determine the same. Accordingly, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 5. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the establishment of the appellant would cover under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, Authorities were justified in calling upon the appellant to furnish the records in order to determine the same. Accordingly, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 5. Having heard the Counsel for the parries, we are of the opinion the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Authority including the Regional Authority have committed a serious error in not considering the objections filed by the appellant, when he has raised a contention of the applicability of the Act. Solely on this ground, the appeal has to be allowed for the following reasons: Section 7A(1) clearly envisages that when a dispute has been raised by a party in regard to the applicability of the Act, it was for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to determine the same. On perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner as per Annexure-E to the writ petition he has not considered the question of maintainability and the same has also not been considered by the Appellate Authority as well the learned Single Judge. Since from the beginning an illegality has been committed by the Authorities in not determining the question of applicability of the Act, we have no other option than to allow these appeals. Accordingly these appeals are allowed setting aside all the orders and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimoga, to give his finding in regard to the applicability of the Act considering the activities of the appellant and the notification issued by the Central Government under section 16(2) of the Act and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law.