IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36110 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMED NOUFAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES, PATHIRIKKAL, PARAKKADAVU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.CHANDRAN, MR.S.SUJITH, MR.V.A.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR/ ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. V.V. SURESH, SC, EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 36110 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 inspection report of the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay contributions as calculated thereunder under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and to comply with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner submits that the enforcement officer does not have power to compute the amounts due under the Act, power which solely rests with the authority under Section 7A of the Act. He further submits that no proceedings under Section 7A of the Act has been initiated by the appropriate authority against the petitioner in that regard. Therefore according to the petitioner, Ext.P1 demand is clearly unsustainable. The learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation, on instructions, submits that Ext.P1 is only an intimation and not not a demand. That only makes the petitioner aware of his liability and if the petitioner disputes the liability, certainly without proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, no recovery proceedings would be initiated. He further W.P(C) No. 36110 of 2009 -2- submits that since the petitioner now disputes the correctness of the amounts quantified and the liability to pay the same, the respondents would not proceed further without passing an order under Section 7A. This is recorded and the writ petition is closed. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge