IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12413 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- HOPE PLANTATIONS, (A DIVISION OF PODDAR UDYOG LTD.,) GLEMARY ESTATE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 31,B B D BAGH, HONGKONG HOUSE, CALCUTTA- 700 001 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. K. BABU. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, CHALAKUZHY BUILDINGS, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, S.R.O., CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SRO , CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 12413 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th May,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is admittedly a defaulter under the EPF Scheme. On distraint proceedings against the property of the petitioner having been taken, it had approached this Court. Originally there was an order of conditional stay. The condition was not complied with. This was taken note of by this Court and by Exhibit-P5 judgment the writ petitions filed by the management and workers of the estates were dismissed. It seems that the amount which this Court had directed the petitioner to remit within two months by an interim order came to be paid later subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition. But he default as such continues and by Exhibit-P6 Employees Provident Fund Organisation has issued a proclamation for sale of the property belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner then filed Exhibit-P7 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner seeking for an instalment W.P ( C) No. 12413 of 2009 2 facility. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents to grant the petitioner instalment facility. 2. Heard learned standing counsel for the respondents also. 3. This Court had in Exhibit-P5 judgment rejected the request made by the company for a direction to the EPF Organisation to grant instalment facility as such. Therefore, similar issue cannot be countenanced at this stage. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. But I make it clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of respondents considering the petitioner’s request for instalment facility and granting such facility if it is otherwise permissible and warranted. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 12413 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No. 12413 of 2009 4