The power to cancel an exemption granted under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is vested only with the appropriate Government.

( 1 ) THE hearing on the application was concluded and the matter was directed to be placed for orders. The matter appeared for orders today. While addressing the Court on the application for interim order, both the learned Counsel had addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, we treat the appeal by consent of the parties as on the day's list for hearing and dispose of the same as hereafter. "this appeal is 'preferred against the order dated November 25, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 1874 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition. The writ petitioner/appellant was granted exemption by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 since replaced by Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952. On the ground of certain default, a notice was issued by the Regional provident Fund Commissioner asking the petitioner to show cause why the exemption so granted shall not be recommended to be withdrawn in terms of section 17 (4) of the 1952 Act. This notice was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that this was beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident fund Commissioner. "

( 2 ) MR. Deb, appearing on behalf of the appellant, pointed out that it is only the appropriate Government as defined in section 2 (a) of the 1952 Act can do so. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can excises only the jurisdiction limited by reason of section 17 (1a) of the said Act inasmuch as only those provided in sections 6, 7a, 8 and 14b. The authority to cancel the exemption granted is conferred on the authority, which granted such exemption as is contemplated under section 17 (4 ). The authority to grant exemption is vested in the appropriate Government under section 17 (1 ). Therefore, the Regional provident Fund Commissioner not being the appropriate Government cannot assume jurisdiction even to recommend the cancellation in the purported exercise of power conferred upon it under section 17 (1a ). He referred to the relevant provision of the 1952 Act in order to elaborate his submission and contended that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can exercise any of the powers conferred upon it under section 17 (1a), which is specific. Such jurisdiction cannot be stretched beyond the confines provided in sub-section (1a) to section 17.

( 3 ) MR. Das Adhikari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner submitted that sub-section (4) of section 17 empowers the appropriate Government to cancel the exemption granted on any of the grounds mentioned therein. But the appropriate Government has no machinery to undertake the said job except through the mechanism prescribed under the 1952 Act and it was for this reason sub-section (1a) was included so as to monitor the process or misuse of the exemption granted by the appropriate government. In case the provisions are not adhered to, it is open to the Regional provident Fund Commissioner to recommend to the appropriate Government for cancellation of the exemption granted on account of non-compliance of the provisions of sections 6, 7a, 8 and 14b respectively. According to the scheme of the 1952 Act, as contended by Mr. Das Adhikari, there being no other authority to monitor the use or process or misuse of the provisions of the exemption granted under the 1952 Act and since the appropriate Government relies upon those machineries and utilizes the service of such mechanism, it is only the natural consequence and corollary and incidence to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commissioner under sub-section (1a) of section 17. Therefore, the impugned notice is well within the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund commissioner.

( 4 ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the question does not seem to pose any difficulty in answering the same. The answer is to be found out from the scheme of the Act itself. Section