A judgment obtained by fraud or collusion is a nullity and can be challenged in any court, even in collateral proceedings.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of proceedings in pursuant to summons/notice No. E/dl/4831/ circle-IV/i/ dated August 6, 2003 and summons/notice No. E/dl/ 4831/circle-COMP/iv/i/ dated August 29, 2003 issued to sewa International Fashions, a partnership firm. The contention of the petitioners is that on september 7, 1996 a raiding team of Employees provident Fund Organization headed by Mr. Birbal Meena, Assistant Provident Funds commissioner (in short "apfc") raided the premises 5, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, New delhi and noted down the names of 938 employees found working in the premises. Based on the report of the raiding parry, a show cause notice dated October 14, 1996 was served upon the petitioner, instead of serving it on sewa International Fashion Pvt. Ltd. , who was the employer of the employees. The petitioners, in response to the notice, contended that notice has been wrongly issued which led to further investigation by department and the investigation of the department showed that in the premises 5, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, new Delhi several other establishments including a branch of the petitioner were working. The department issued a notice to all such establishments and after considering the evidence led, an order under Section 7-A of the employees' Provident Fund and Misc provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act") was passed on October 12, 2000. By this order, it was finally concluded that out of 938 employees, only 20 employees were working with petitioner No. 1 Sewa International fashions. The details/ split up of employees have been given by the petitioners in written synopsis as under: s. No . Name of Establishment No. of Employees outof 938 employees working on September 7, 1996 1. Indian Exports 111 2. Liberty Garments 108 3. Sanjeev Fabricators 87 4. Anil Garments 52 5. Stylish Fabricators 377 6. Naresh Fancy Clothing 7. Hindustan Garments 42 8. 94 Sewa International Fashions 9. New Engg. Works 2 10. Not ?? identified ?? to which company they belong ? Total 938 20 45

( 2 ) IT is submitted that in respect of Sewa international Fashions Pvt. Ltd. , which was one of the companies functioning in the above premises, it was observed that this company was functioning in Faridabad. The Regional provident Fund Commissioned in short "rpfc"), Delhi, in its order dated October 12, 2000 referred the matter to RPFC, Faridabad for further action including examining of clubbing of eight of above establishments with Sewa international Fashions Pvt. Ltd. In pursuant to the order dated October 12, 2000 under Section 7-A of the Act, the Authorities initiated an inquiry for each establishment and determined the dues payable by such establishments working at 5, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, new Delhi. The dues of the petitioners were also determined and were duly paid. The inquiry was thereafter closed. However, after a gap of about three years, on August 6, 2003, the department again served a show cause notice for non extension of provident fund benefits to employees found working during the raid on september 7, 1996, without specifying the period for which the show cause notice was issued. The petitioners contested the notice before the Department on the ground of res judicata stating that the order under Section 7-A of the Act has already been passed on october 12, 2000 and a fresh inquiry cannot be initiated on the basis of same raid and the matter cannot be reopened. If the respondents were dissatisfied with the order under Section 7a of the Act, the respondents should have gone into an appeal against the order. It is submitted that the Authority under Section 7-A of the Act did not pass any order on the legal objection taken by the petitioners and proceeded with the show cause notice. Thus the petitioners were compelled to file the present writ petition for necessary directions by this Court.

( 3 ) IT may be note