JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J.: The writ petition is filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSNL’) a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking challenging the impugned order vide Annexure-9 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) in a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as ‘EPF and M.P. Act.’). In the writ petition while seeking quashing of Annexure-9, the petitioner also requested for a direction to opposite party no.1 to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act. In filing the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged that in spite of its full cooperation to opposite party no.1 and in spite of a clear plea of denial that it has no employee of its own left from purview of the Act and requesting the authority to adjudicate the dispute by calling upon the contractors to find out if any beneficiary is left from being covered under the Act by providing a list of such contractors along with its above request. The authority remain unheeded and passed an Arbitrary and whimsical order. While arguing, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to its reply at Page-19 of the writ petition categorically saying that there are no such casual N.M.Rs. and Contractor employees engaged on or after 01.10.2000 directly for execution of works in the particular division in continuous process. Learned counsel for the petitioner in advancing his argument has also drawn my attention to a correspondence at Page-21 a document furnishing to the opposite party no.1 list of contractors of BSNL, SSA, Sambalpur as appended to therein for enabling it to go for a detail enquiry. In this view of the matter, the petitioner alleged that since the mater was adjudicated following prescription under Section 7-A of the said Act, it was incumbent upon the opposite party no.1 to call upon the contractors as per information provided by the petitioner itself to produce their records and arrived at a conclusion based on materials available on record and since the impugned order is not in consideration of request of the petitioner, the opposite party no.1 has failed in exercising its power as entrusted under Section 7-A of the EPF and M.P. Act. 2. 2. Per contra, on its appearance by filing a counter opposite parties apart from trying to justify the order passed under Section 7-A, strenuously argued that the writ petition is not maintainable for availability of a statutory remedy by way of appeal as provided under Section 7-I of the Act. It further submitted that on initiation of the proceeding under Section 7-A, the establishment on their appearance apart from filing their reply following direction of the Provident Fund Authority to come-forward with the details of casual employees engaged through contractors vide Annexures-4 and 8 series as appearing at Pages-25-26 and 38-39 filed only indicating therein that they have not been engaging any casual employees since 2008 and since a duty was casted on the petitioner to establish its own case it could alone proved its case. 3. Section 7-A (2)(b) gives the authority the following powers. “Section 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,- (2) The officer conducting the inquiry under Subsection (1) shall, for the purposes of such inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents” From the perusal of the whole orders vide the impugned order, I find no consideration of the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the contractors, in spite of petitioner’s denying having any employee beyond the persons already covered, the Authority did not exercise its power under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The authority has failed to exercise powers vested in them under Section 7-A (2)(b) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Since the adjudication was in relation to casual and N.M.R. employees of the contractors following the provisions contained in the aforesaid Section, it was incumbent upon the authority to summon the contractors and to find out the particulars before arriving at the final assessment. The assessment order vide Annexures-9 no where also discloses materials based on which the calculation has been made and an assessment has been solely based on salary component. The assessment order vide Annexures-9 no where also discloses materials based on which the calculation has been made and an assessment has been solely based on salary component. It no where also discloses as to how the same help the beneficiaries of such calculation. The collection of the amount under adjudication is not a collection to go to the purse of the Central Government or the State Government by way of collection of tax. The collection of dues under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is for the purpose of benefit of the beneficiaries, in the absence of details of the beneficiaries and their salary components adjudication under Section 7-A remains incomplete. 4. Now coming to answer on the question of maintainability of writ in view of a clear remedy of Appeal the submission of the petitioner is well supported by a judgment reported in J.M. Baxi & Co. v. Commissioner Customs; (2001) Vol-9 SCC-275 and Thressiamma v. Union of India; A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 556 where the Hon’ble Apex court has held Appeal remedy is not always a bar. Since I have held that the authorities have failed in exercising power vested in it under Section 7-A of the Act and further since the impugned order is passed in total non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, I do not feel that any purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Appellate authority and getting an order of remand. 5. In view of findings arrived at while setting aside the impugned order vide Annexure-1, I feel it appropriate to remand the matter to the Original authority to look into the matter afresh after calling upon the contractors to produce the records, examine them and upon providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pass an appropriate order in exercise of power under Section 7-A of the said Act,. 6. The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed above, however, there shall not order as to cost.