JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. - Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner(Comp.I), Regional Office, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ petition with direction to make specific assessment in respect of the employees deployed by the service provider in the petitioner's establishment and to refund sum of Rs.43,79,823/- which was illegally realised from the petitioner's bank account. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the Orissa State Beverages Corporation Limited, the petitioner, has decided to engage M/s Panther Security Services (opposite party no.3), to provide total security and allied services to the Corporate office and different depots of the petitioner and for that an agreement was entered into in between the petitioner and opposite party no.3 on 23.11.2004 and in pursuance to the same employees were deployed in the petitioner's establishment and the petitioner decided to deduct 10% from the bills of the service provider to ensure deposit of P.F. dues with effect from October,2005 which continued up to June,2009, which was communicated to the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide letter no.1883 dated 19.6.2009 and dated 21.1.2010. Petitioner was served with a notice intimating that a proceeding under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1952) was initiated against M/s Panther Security Service for default in deposit of provident fund dues from 1,2007 to 12/2010 and it was intimated by the authority that the said proceeding was concluded on 16.5.2011 and a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been assessed, after receiving the said letter petitioner prepared a Banker Cheque bearing No.530930 dated 26.9.2011 for a amount of Rs.17,44,388/- which was withheld from the bills of the service provider but the same was returned vide letter dated 29.9.2011 with communication that a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- had already been realised from the bank account of the petitioner lying in the State Bank of India, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar Branch. It is the case of the petitioner that while passing order under section 7A of the EPF Act,1952 petitioner was neither made a party nor communicated with the order passed under section 7A of the Act,1952 and it is only after the order having been passed under section 7A, request has been made for obtaining certified copy of the order then only it could be known to the petitioner regarding the order which was passed under section 7A of the Act,1952. According to the petitioner assessment was made on the basis of all employees engaged by M/s Panther Security Service from the month of 1/2007 to 12/2010 which were deployed in different organisations besides M/s Orissa State Beverages Limited, petitioner, but it is apparent from the order of assessment that the said assessment was made for the employees deployed in the establishment of Orissa Disaster Management, but it is not known till date, for how many employees the assessment was made. Since it is apparent that the assessment has been made for all the employees of M/s Panther Security Services the petitioner is not liable to pay the entire dues except for the employees deployed in its establishment through Panther Security Services. According to the petitioner services of M/s Panther Security Services was discontinued after August,2009 which was communicated vide letter dated 6.8.2009 and thereafter services of the opposite party no.3 were never been taken but assessment has been made by the authority while passing order under section 7A of the Act,1952 for the period from 1/2007 to 12/2010 along with interest. Case of the petitioner that the order has been passed by the authority under section 7A of the Act, 1952 is behind back which in gross violation of principle of natural justice and without any notice, a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been recovered from the bank account of the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter has filed one application under section 7B of the Act, 1952 for review but the review petition has been rejected on the ground of locus standi, against which petitioner is before this Court on the ground that the authority have passed the order without application of mind and without availing the principle of review. Further the order is non-speaking. 3. Further the order is non-speaking. 3. Opposite parties have appeared and filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that the petitioner has got no locus standi to file application for review under section 7B of the Act, 1952. It has been stated that petitioner has been given enough opportunity during course of enquiry and to represent the case after taking adjournment and thereafter order has been passed by the Enforcement Officer since the petitioner has admitted default in payment of dues before him. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Before adjudicating the issue the order which is impugned in this writ petition is dated 10.1.2012(Annexure-9) which is being quoted for ready reference. "Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Xxxxxxxx L.No.OR/PF/CC-I-12049 5531/10.1.12 To M/s Orissa State Beverages Corporation Ltd, 9th Floor, IDCO Towers, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Sub-Review under section 7B of the EPF and MP Act,1952 against the order u/s 7A of the said Act for the period from 01/07 to 12/10-Reg. Sir, With reference to the subject citied above, it is to inform you that as the inquiry u/s 7A of the EPF and MP Act,1952 initiated and concluded against M/s Panther Security Service, M/s Orissa State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Has no locus standi to file the application for review u/s 7B of the said Act. As such the application u/s 7B of the said Act filed by M/s Orissa State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Stand rejected. Yours faithfully Sd/- (M.A.B.Baig), Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Comp.I) Regional Office, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" The application filed for review by the petitioner under section 7B of the Act,1952 was for review of order passed under section 7A of the Act,1952. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no.3 was a service provider for providing service of their security personnel and regarding assessment to be made under section 7A of the Act the period has been assessed from 1/2007 to 3/2009. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no.3 was a service provider for providing service of their security personnel and regarding assessment to be made under section 7A of the Act the period has been assessed from 1/2007 to 3/2009. For the purpose of determining the amount the employer was summoned to appear before the Authorised Officer on different dates along with relevant documents in which representative of the opposite party no.3 has admitted fault on his part for the case period and in view thereof the Enforcement Officer has submitted report enclosing statement of wages/salary paid to the employees and deposit position on 21.4.2011 and thereafter the period was extended up to 12/2010 since department representative has submitted the dues/deposit position up to 12/2010. The Enforcement Officer/Department representative who is also an Inspector under section 13(1) of the Act,1952 has filed report dated 21.4.2011 and confirmed that a total amount of Rs.47,99,850/- is due from the employer under various accounts in relation to M/s Panther Security Service, on the basis of verification of records of the establishment for the said period. The establishment has deposited a sum of Rs.14,44,629/- during the course of enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner, period from 1/2007 to 3/2009, has been extended up to 12/2010. It is also not in dispute as has been pleaded in the writ petition that by virtue of agreement entered into between the opposite party no.3 and the petitioner on 23.11.2004, service has been provided by the opposite party no.3 and since the opposite party no.3 was irregular in depositing PF and ESI dues in respect of the employees deployed in the petitioner establishment, petitioner decided to deduct 10% from bills of the service provider to ensure deposit of PF dues w.e.f. October,2005 to June,2009 which was communicated to the Provident Fund Commissioner vide letter dated 19.6.2009. The details of bills raised and the amount withheld @10% of the service provider from 11/2007 to 6/2009 has also been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is case of the petitioner that service of the opposite party no.3 was discontinued after August,2009 which was communicated vide letter dated 6.8.2009 and after 6.8.2009 none of the employees of M/s Panther Security Service, opposite party no.3, were deployed, hence extension of the enquiry period from 1/2007 to 3/2009 up to 12/2010 is without any reason. It is case of the petitioner that service of the opposite party no.3 was discontinued after August,2009 which was communicated vide letter dated 6.8.2009 and after 6.8.2009 none of the employees of M/s Panther Security Service, opposite party no.3, were deployed, hence extension of the enquiry period from 1/2007 to 3/2009 up to 12/2010 is without any reason. However, petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.17,44,388/- but the same was returned back since a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been realised from the bank account of the petitioner maintained in the State Bank of India and it is only thereafter petitioner came to know that wrong assessment has been made by the assessing authority, based upon which order has been passed under section 7A of the Act,1952, hence he has filed review petition provided under section 7B of the Act,1952 for review of the order, copy which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, stating inter alia therein that the assessment was made from 1/2007 to 12/2010, said statement was made for all employees engaged by M/s Panther Security Service who were deployed in different organisations besides M/s Orissa State Beverages Corporation Limited, petitioner. Further it has been stated that the order of assessment was made for the employees deployed in the establishment Orissa Disaster Management and it is not known till date for which employees assessment has been made but it is clear that the said assessment was made for the entire establishment of M/s Panther Security Service, hence review petition on the ground that before assessing and putting any liability upon the petitioner in the order of assessment passed under section 7A of the Act,1952 making recovery from the account of the petitioner will amount to prejudicing interest which cannot be done without providing opportunity of being heard and without even issuing notice. It has been stated in the review petition that recovery from the account of the petitioner will be said to be without authority of law since there is no stipulation regarding fixation of liability upon the petitioner in the order passed under section 7A of the Act, 1952 and as such since amount has been directed to be recovered and recovered from the bank account of the petitioner, to which petitioner is a necessary party to appraise the facts to the authority who has passed order under section 7A of the Act, 1952, hence petitioner is necessary and aggrieved party, but without appreciating this aspect of the matter order has been passed rejecting the application under section 7B of the Act, 1952 on the ground of locus standi, in this juncture it needs to refer the provision of section 7B of the Act, 1952 which is being quoted for ready reference. "Review of orders passed under Section 7A. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section 1 of section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the officer who passed the order: Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground. (2) Every application for review under sub-section 1 shall be filed in such form and manner and within such time as may be specified in the Scheme. (3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application. (2) Every application for review under sub-section 1 shall be filed in such form and manner and within such time as may be specified in the Scheme. (3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application. (4) Where the officer is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, be shall grant the same: Provided that, - (a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in support of the order in respect of which a review is applied for, and (b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, without proof of such allegation. (5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under section 7A." From perusal of the provisions of Section 7B of the Act, 1952 right has been conferred upon a party to file review petition before the authority who has passed order under section 7A of the Act, 1952 or any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section(1) of Section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act can apply for review of that order of the officer who has passed order. 6. From perusal of provisions under section 7A there is no reference regarding liability having been put upon the petitioner but fact remains, which is not in dispute, that a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been recovered from the account of the petitioner and it is to be seen as to whether petitioner has got locus standi to file review under section 7B of the Act,1952 and as to whether petitioner is an aggrieved party or not. For reaching to this conclusion, provisions of Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code needs to be referred which is being reproduced below. "1. For reaching to this conclusion, provisions of Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code needs to be referred which is being reproduced below. "1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review." From perusal of the provisions as contained in Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.,1908 it is apparent that any person considering himself aggrieved may file review petition for review of decision under Rule 1 but under Rule 2 a persons who is not party may apply for a review when he considered himself aggrieved by such decision. The meaning "person considering himself aggrieved" is different from the meaning "person aggrieved" as referred in Rule 2 of the C.P.C. Hence, the expression "considering himself aggrieved" would include a person who may not have the mode of person aggrieved but include person who feel and considers-himself aggrieved under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 47 of the C.P.C. The term 'person aggrieved' has been interpreted in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty and others reported in (1998)6 SCC 447. According to this decision 'any person aggrieved' must be a person who suffered legal grievance or legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived and denied of something which he would have been entitled to obtain in the usual course and it is on the basis of this principle, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been recovered from the account of the petitioner on the garb of the order passed under section 7A of the Act, 1952, petitioner will be said to be person aggrieved, hence review is maintainable. 7. Specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-establishment is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act, 1952 and as such petitioner-establishment is not liable to make any statutory contribution or deposit in terms of the Act, 1952. From perusal of the provision as contained in Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. it is evident that there is difference between the wording as contained in Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., any person who is not a party to the original proceeding even though he is not directly can maintain review petition if the party feels and considers itself as aggrieved. It is true that review petitioner need not be party to the original proceeding to maintain review but petitioner would be the circumstance to warrant him to consider himself or feel it that he is aggrieved person or feel himself who suffered from legal injury. In other words, a person who was not a party to the proceeding when he feels and considers himself aggrieved can maintain review and show to the court as to how he feels to be considered himself aggrieved and for that he himself establish that he suffered legal judgment or direction. 8. In the present case, the review petitioner claims to be an aggrieved by the order passed under section 7A of the Act,1952 and the ground taken that a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been recovered from the account by extending period of enquiry from 1/2007 to 3/2009 to 12/2010 and thereafter in the garb of the order passed under section 7A of the Act amount had been recovered, hence he claims to be a necessary aggrieved party. 9. 9. It needs to refer judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited v. Gajendra Haldea and others reported in (2008) 13 SCC 414 wherein it has been held that 'any person aggrieved must be a person who suffered legal grievance or legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived and denied of something which he would have been entitled to obtain in the usual course. In Nalakanath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman reported in (2002) 6 SCC 1 Hon'ble Apex Court held that the expression 'aggrieved himself means person feels aggrieved by ultimate decision or operative part of the order. 10. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2092 wherein at paragraph-27 it has been held- "Where a right of appeal to Courts against an administrative or judicial decision is created by statute, the right is invariably confined to a person aggrieved or a person who claims to be aggrieved. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the con text of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been 'denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words a "person aggrieved" is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more liberal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality. The role of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act is comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics. The words "persons aggrieved" in sections 37 and 38 of the Act are of wide import add should not be subjected to a restricted interpretation of possession or denial of legal rights or burdens or financial interests. The role of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act is comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics. The words "persons aggrieved" in sections 37 and 38 of the Act are of wide import add should not be subjected to a restricted interpretation of possession or denial of legal rights or burdens or financial interests. The test is whether the words "person aggrieved" include "a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which pre-judicially affects his interests". It has therefore, to be found out whether the Bar Council has a grievance in respect of an order or decision affecting the professional conduct and etiquette. From perusal of the ratio laid down laying down the proposition that if a person is aggrieved by imposing legal burden upon him then he will be said to be a person aggrieved. Persons who has genuine grievance because order has been passed which prejudice fact his interest will be said to be person aggrieved. In this respect, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 578 wherein at paragraph-12 it has been held- "According to most English decisions, in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person" and, in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfil that character, and is a "stranger", the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances. This takes us to the further question: Who is an "aggrieved person" and what are the qualifications requisite for such a status ? The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad, tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. English Courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression "aggrieved person". However, some general tests have been devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible for this category so as to have the necessary locus standi or 'standing' to invoke certiorari jurisdiction." From perusal of the proposition laid down in this case it is evident that the meaning of aggrieved party depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. In the later proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, it will depend upon the facts and circumstances and fact in this case that recovery has been made from the account of the petitioner on the basis of the order passed under section 7A of the Act, 1952 and the fact that the petitioner has received notice under section 8F of the Act, 1952 which pertains to recovery of amount . In terms thereof the petitioner has written letter dated 26.9.2011 by enclosing banker's cheque bearing No.530930 dated 26.9.2011 of SBI, IDCO Towers, BBSR for an amount of Rs.17,44,388/- for the period from 1/2007 to 12/2010. An amount of Rs.17,44,388/- was kept withheld from the bills of M/s Panther Security Service during the period of working with the petitioner from 10/2005 to 6/2009 to ensure towards payment of statutory dues by the service provider and thereafter the said banker cheque was returned back and the petitioner was communicated with letter that a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been recovered from the bank account of the petitioner. This fact clearly goes to show that legal injury has been done regarding interest of the petitioner and as such petitioner is person aggrieved on the basis of the discussion made herein above. 11. This fact clearly goes to show that legal injury has been done regarding interest of the petitioner and as such petitioner is person aggrieved on the basis of the discussion made herein above. 11. So far as second ground as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is without any reason, hence not sustainable. In order to appreciate this argument it needs to refer to the fact that principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today were; (i) rule against bias, i.e. nemo index in causa sua; (ii) opportunity of being heard to the concerned party, i.e. audi alteram partem. These are known as principles of natural justice. To this principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a reasoned order. Reference needs be made here of the judgment rendered in the case of The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. The Union of India and another reported in (1976)2 SCC 981 wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court has been pleased to hold at para-6 that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quail-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. In the case of B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority and Ors. reported in AIR 2015 Supreme Court 767 Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the rule of reasons is anti-thesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice and if an order is passed in absence of reason, then it cannot be said to be sustainable. Reference may be to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and others delivered in Civil Appeal Nos.4458-4459 of 2015 on 14.5.2015 wherein their Lordships has been pleased to hold that in the principles of natural justice third principle has been added, which is of recent origin i.e. passing of reasoned order. Commissioner of Central Excise and others delivered in Civil Appeal Nos.4458-4459 of 2015 on 14.5.2015 wherein their Lordships has been pleased to hold that in the principles of natural justice third principle has been added, which is of recent origin i.e. passing of reasoned order. In the light of these proposition, from perusal of the order impugned it is evident that the authorities have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner under section 7B of the Act,1952, but merely on one line by saying that the petitioner has no locus standi to file application, but how he is lacking locos standi that has not been dealt with in the order, hence the order cannot be said to be in consonance with the proposition as has been laid down by the Apex Court referred herein above. On this the order is sustainable. 12. In view of this, order dated 10.1.2012(Annexure-9) rejecting review application filed by the petitioner under section 7B of the Act, 1952 having locus standi is held to be without any application of mind and as such the same is not sustainable and accordingly quashed. 13. The matter is remitted before the competent authority to pass order on the review application filed under section 7B of the Act, 1952 in accordance with law within reasonable period preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not exercised its mind on the merit of the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Final Result : Disposed off