IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21180 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SOMARAJAN, PROPRIETOR M/S. KAILAS CASHEW EXPORTS,PEZHOOKONAM, CHEERANKAVU, KOLLAM 691 505. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA) ANDAMMUKKAM, KOLLAM 691 001 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).21180/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Mr.Reghuraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pirappancode Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. The substantial issue raised in this writ petition is covered by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. Reference has been made therein to the fact that challenging the order passed by the Assessing authority under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. petitioner has already moved the Tribunal. He also moved the Tribunal for dispensation of pre-deposit. He was directed to deposit 50% of the assessed amount. He then filed an application for variation of the said order and then approached this Court in the wake of proceedings taken by the 2nd respondent, the Recovery Officer, to recover the amount originally assessed against the petitioner. I had directed the proceedings for enforcement of Ext.P1 order to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from the date W.P.(C).21180/09 2 of judgment, giving liberty to the petitioner to move the Tribunal and seek orders on the application for review filed by him in relation to the order directing deposit of 50% of the amount for dispensing with pre-deposit. Mr.Reghuraj submits that orders are yet to be passed. In the meanwhile, recovery steps have also been taken. 3. It cannot be said that the 2nd respondent is acting illegally in taking steps, in the light of the fact that the time mentioned in Ext.P5 has already expired. But on an overall appreciation of facts, 2nd respondent is directed to keep in abeyance further steps for recovery for a further period of one month from today. It is made clear that it is upto the petitioner to move the Tribunal seeking orders on the application for review stated to have been filed. It is open to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the steps for recovery after the aforementioned period of one month. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs