JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties. 2. The petitioner in the present case is a proprietary concern which has challenged orders passed by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. On 5.5.2009, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, passed an order applying the provisions of the aforesaid Act to the petitioner establishment and thereafter on 16.2.2010, an order was passed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act, fixing the liability of the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. The period for which the said order was passed was from 22.9.1997. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a review application under Section 7B of the said Act, which was rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid order dated 16.2.2010. By its judgment and order dated 21.12.2015, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, only to the extent of making the provisions of the Act applicable to the petitioner from 1.4.1999 instead of 22.9.1997. The rest of the contents of the order of the respondent herein were maintained and in view of date of applicability of the order being changed, fresh assessment enquiry and proceedings were undertaken by the respondent. 4. The respondent passed subsequent order on 20.2.2017, reassessing the liability of petitioner establishment for the period April 1999 to February 2009. 5. The principal ground of challenge raised in the present writ petition is that while passing orders dated 16.2.2009 and 20.2.2017, the respondent authority relied upon certain documents, particularly report of the Enforcement Officer dated 16.10.2009, copies of which were never supplied to the petitioner. It is claimed that in the absence of supplying such copies to the petitioner and then relying upon the same, the respondent authority had committed a serious procedural error, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It was conceded on behalf of the petitioner that applicability of the Act, if at all, would be from April, 1999 and to that extent challenge was not being raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was conceded on behalf of the petitioner that applicability of the Act, if at all, would be from April, 1999 and to that extent challenge was not being raised on behalf of the petitioner. All the same, it was submitted that in view of the aforesaid serious error committed by the respondent authority, the order dated 20.2.2017, was required to be quashed and set aside and that the matter could be remanded to the respondent authority with specific direction to supply all the documents on which reliance was being placed by the authority so that sufficient opportunity would be available to the petitioner to raise its challenge and place its case before the respondent authority. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority fairly submitted that perusal of original record did not show any specific acknowledgment from the petitioner establishment for the receipt of documents, particularly the report of the Enforcement Officer dated 16/10/2009 on which reliance was placed while passing order under Section 7A of the said Act. 7. In view of the above, it becomes clear that impugned order dated 20-2-2017, passed by the respondent authority is rendered unsustainable to the extent that copies of relevant documents were not furnished to the petitioner establishment before passing the order under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in relying upon the judgment and order dated 5-9-2008, passed in Writ Petition No. 3775/1995, Small Gauges Ltd. & Ors. v. V.P. Ramaiah Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune, wherein it has been held as follows: "In my view, the order under section 7A of the EPF Act cannot be sustained inasmuch as it has been passed without furnishing the reports and other documents relied on by the Enforcement Officer in support of the claim made against the petitioners. Unless the report, the depositions and, the documents are furnished to the petitioners, these documents cannot be relied on by the respondent to pass orders against the petitioners. The basic tenets of the principle of audi alteram partem require that a person should not be condemned without giving him a hearing. Such a hearing must be meaningful and effective and not a farce. The basic tenets of the principle of audi alteram partem require that a person should not be condemned without giving him a hearing. Such a hearing must be meaningful and effective and not a farce. All documents relied on by the Department in support of its claim against the petitioners must be furnished to the petitioners before any conclusion is arrived at on the basis of those documents." 8. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that failure to furnish report and relevant documents to the concerned establishment would show violation of the principles of natural justice and that in such a situation, the order passed by the authority would be rendered unsustainable. In the present case, it is an admitted position that copy of the report of the Enforcement Officer dated 16/10/2009, was not supplied to the petitioner establishment and since reliance was placed upon the same while passing order under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act, the said order was rendered unsustainable to that extent. 9. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there were other documents on which reliance was placed by the respondent authority and copies of the same were not furnished to the petitioner. It was submitted that an appropriate direction was required to be given to the respondent authority to supply other relevant documents also. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. Order dated 20-2-2017, passed by the respondent authority is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola for fresh consideration. The said authority is directed to supply copy of report of the Enforcement Officer dated 16-10-2009 and such other documents that were relied and would be relied upon by the authority while conducting enquiry and passing appropriate order under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act. The respondent authority is directed to complete the proceedings and pass order under Section 7A of the said Act within a period of six months from today. 11. The amount deposited by the petitioner establishment during pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, which is said to be lying with the respondent authority shall continue in deposit during pendency of the remanded proceedings before the respondent authority. 11. The amount deposited by the petitioner establishment during pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, which is said to be lying with the respondent authority shall continue in deposit during pendency of the remanded proceedings before the respondent authority. Suitable orders in respect of said amount shall be passed by the respondent authority upon final orders being passed under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act. 12. Writ petition is disposed of.