JUDGMENT : 1. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. One of the principal grievances of the petitioners is that they have not been served with any copy of the order under Sections 14B or 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 3. To a question put by this Court to Mr. Prasad, the learned advocate for the provident fund authorities, about the date on which the petitioners had received the said order he produced the instruction received by him and submitted that he is not aware of the date as Mr. Chatterjee, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, for the first time is making this submission in Court. Therefore, he could not take the instruction about the date on which, if at all, such order was served upon the petitioners. 4. I am afraid if such be the stand of Mr. Prasad I have to conclude about his inadequate acquaintance with the allegation made in the writ petition. In the writ petition at more than one places the petitioners have alleged that copy of the order has not been served upon them. It is not that the petitioners are making a submission absolutely off their hat which has no basis in the averments made. 5. In such view of it, I have to conclude that the respondents have not been able to provide the information relating to the very fundamental objection raised in the writ petition about the non-service of the order impugned. 6. Let an affidavit in opposition be filed within four weeks from date. Let an affidavit in reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 7. Let the matter appear for hearing in the Combined Monthly List of June, 2017. 8. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the writ petition I am of the view that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for grant of an interim order. The balance of convenience and inconvenience shall affect the petitioners more than grant of it is likely to prejudice the respondents. As such the respondents shall not take any coercive measure and shall not proceed with the notice of demand against the petitioners without the leave of the Court. 9. Mr. The balance of convenience and inconvenience shall affect the petitioners more than grant of it is likely to prejudice the respondents. As such the respondents shall not take any coercive measure and shall not proceed with the notice of demand against the petitioners without the leave of the Court. 9. Mr. Prasad raises a question about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Such points when taken, more often than not, are not really substantiated by any legal back-up. This is a case where the petitioners are alleging the violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing them the basic order upon which the subsequent actions have been initiated by the respondents. When the petitioners allege violation of natural justice Writ certainly lies. Therefore, the point of maintainability raised by Mr. Prasad is found to be without any substance.