2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since a reading of the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the respondent on the representation submitted by the petitioner on the very same day, in response to the show cause notice issued to it, would reveal that the respondent has made up his mind to negative the contention of the petitioner, petitioner apprehends that it may not get justice if the case is heard by the respondent, and so the case may be transferred either to the office at Hyderabad or to some other regional office in the State of Andhra Pradesh by placing strong reliance on VILLAGE RECONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION v THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II AND ANOTHER in support of the said contention. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondent is that since the respondent did not decide the case against the petitioner and had only answered the contentions of the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice and in any event since the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under section 7-I of the Act, against an order passed by the respondent, petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order and since the decision in VILLAGE RECONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION case (1 supra) was rendered at a time when no appellate authority was constituted and since there is an appellant authority now, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
