JUDGMENT
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. The petitioner by filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an order, dated April 2, 2003 (Annexure P-2).
2. The order impugned is passed under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 whereby demand for outstanding dues towards payment of provident fund dues has been raised on petitioner.
3. Indeed, perusal of order (Annexure P-2) itself indicates that the same is passed after affording 34 opportunities to the petitioner. In other words, proceedings for determination of the outstanding dues payable by the petitioner were pending from June 11, 2001 till April 2, 2003. During these days, as many as 34 dates were fixed for holding an inquiry. The petitioner attended few of these but did nothing except to indulge in adjournments. Eventually, the impugned order was passed based on best judgment assessment.
4. It cannot be disputed that petitioner is a chronic defaulter in not paying the dues under the Act. It is also not in dispute that despite as many as 34 opportunities having been extended to them, the petitioner failed to avail of it.
5. What more can this Court do in a case of this nature except to uphold the demand. If the petitioner despite granting three years’ time, could not avail of the opportunity then this Court cannot grant any more indulgence than the one shown by the authorities concerned. It will be a clear case of abuse of process and exploitation of the Court process.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was the same namely, some more opportunity be extended and matter be remanded to show that petitioner has made some payment towards dues. Indeed, 34 hearings were fixed only for this purpose and yet they were not availed of. Nobody prevented the petitioner from participating in inquiry and co-operating with the inquiry proceedings. As a matter of fact, the inquiry was meant only for this purpose and nothing else.
7. In my opinion, the petitioner has miserably failed to show any sufficient cause as to why they could not participate in the inquiry proceedings in last three years when they were granted 34 opportunities, failure to show sufficient cause results in upholding of the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that this Court should hold an inquiry into some payment made by the petitioner towards dues or atleast remand the case. I do not agree to this submission. It is infact answered by the aforesaid discussion. The petitioner has to suffer the demand which is based on best judgment assessment that being the only mode available for the assessing officer.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.