1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2010, by which, the respondent allotted the Subscriber Code Number under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“1952 Act”). The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 13.8.2015, by which, the Review Application filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of 1952 Act, seeking review of the order passed on 10.6.2015 under Section 7A of 1952 Act, has been rejected.

5. The petitioner submits that an ancestral property in the form of a land/plot was inherited by the two real brothers i.e. the petitioner/Director and his real brother. Since both of them acquired a right, title and interest to equal shares in the same plot, the petitioner started the business of selling cars upon having acquired the agency through a Car Manufacturer. The brother of the petitioner started a Proprietary Firm, by which, the After Sales Service of the Cars was being handled in the said proprietary concern. Grievance is that the respondent authority has presumed that the Car Agency as well as the Workshop amount to one and the same establishment and the two brothers are attempting to create a false picture that these are two independent business establishments.

6. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 14.7.2010 granting Subscriber Code Number and making the 1952 Act applicable to the petitioner, was passed without hearing the petitioner. Similarly, the order under Section 7A, dated 10.6.2015, does not deal with the grievance of the petitioner that the 1952 Act is not applicable to it. Hence the Review Petition at issue was filed under Section 7B and the same has been rejected, without even issuing a notice of hearing.

7. The petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by this Court in the following cases:-

(i) Writ Petition No.1002/2008 - Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 27.8.2008 and

(ii) Writ Petition No.3389 of 2011 - Lokvikas Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 2.5.2011.

8. Shri Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the respondent/PF authorities submits that the law does not contemplate any hearing of the Review Applicant on the Review Application. He submits that unlike a hearing on a Review Application as is contemplated under Order XLVII Rules 1 to 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, the 1952 Act makes no provision for causing any hearing on the Review Petition, if the same is to be rejected. Only when a Review Application is likely to be allowed, that a hearing is contemplated, so as to ensure that the beneficiaries of the order under Section 7A have no grievance of having not being heard.

9. Shri Chaudhary has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Mansa Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [2003 (3) G..H. 500], and

(ii) Writ Petition (C) 2856 of 2008 - Bharat Polychem Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Delhi High Court), dated 20.7.2011.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, as have been recorded herein above and have gone through the record available.

11. Order XLVII Rules 1, 3 & 4 of the CPC reads as under:-

“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 of for any other sufficient r