1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1545 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 S.Durgeshwaran ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Tirunelveli. 3.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, NGO 'B' Colony, Tirunelveli - 627 007. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 11.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.7272 of 2011. Prayer in WP(MD)No.7272 of 2011 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent in A.T.A.No.303(13)2011, dated 25.04.2011 and quash the same as illegal. For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.K.Murali Shankar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J) Mr.Murali Shankar, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. 2.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal, challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 11.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.7272 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking for the relief of quashing the order of the first respondent herein in ATA No.303/13/2011, dated 25.04.2011. 4.Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has already preferred a statutory appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and during the pendency of the said statutory appeal, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay 40% of the assessed amount, which comes to above Rs.18 lakhs. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is not able to raise such a huge amount, as the appellant is having only one house property and even the said property has been attached. Therefore, it is submitted that some leniency may be shown in respect of pre-deposit amount, as ordered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that the appellant is ready and willing to take efforts to raise the fund to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and he would deposit the same, pending disposal of the statutory appeal and on such deposit, the Tribunal may be directed to entertain the appeal and pass orders on merits. 5.Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is contended that the Tribunal itself has already shown leniency, as it is for the Tribunal to direct the appellant to deposit 75% of the assessed amount and instead, considering the difficulties of the appellant, the Tribunal has directed him to deposit only 40% of the assessed amount. It is contended that in view of the same, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, insisting the appellant to pay 40% of the assessed amount. 6.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the order passed by the writ Court as well as the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein dated 25.04.2011. 7.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant has rightly preferred a statutory appeal before the Provident Fund Tribunal and the same is pending. However, in order to entertain the statutory appeal, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 40% of the assessed amount. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to financial constraint and in view of the house property, which owned by the appellant, was already attached, the appellant was not able to raise such a huge amount for depositing 40% of the assessed amount. 8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the financial constraint of the appellant, we are of the view that directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as a pre-deposit amount for entertaining the statutory appeal by the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant herein is directed to make a pre- deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and on such deposit, the Provident Fund Appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Tribunal shall entertain the appeal and by affording opportunity to the appellant, dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law. 9.With the above direction, the writ appeal is hereby disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Tirunelveli. 3.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, NGO 'B' Colony, Tirunelveli - 627 007. +1. CC to Mr.P.Pethur Rajesh, Advocate, SR.No. 44911 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 45387 gcg Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1545 of 2011 Dated:21.12.2011 TR : 09.01.2012: 3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/