IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8629 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.DELTA SECURITY SERVICES, SREE BHAGAVATHI, TV CENTER ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695005 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8629 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that in an application filed under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act for review of Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent, Ext.P4 order has been passed without hearing the petitioner or making available report of the Enforcement Officer which is relied on by the 2nd respondent while passing Ext.P1 order. From Ext.P4 itself, it is clear that the petitioner has not been heard. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the report of the Enforcement Officer was not made available to the petitioner, it is stated in Ext.P4 that the petitioner had not made any request for any document as alleged in the 7B application. Apart from the infirmity in non-granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, I am not satisfied with the reasoning for not granting copy of the report of the W.P.(c)No.8629/08 2 Enforcement Officer before passing Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was not aware of the fact that the 2nd respondent is going to rely on the report of the Enforcement Officer. Therefore the petitioner could not have made an application for report of the Enforcement Officer. It was only when Ext.P1 order was passed, the petitioner became aware of the fact that the Enforcement Officer has filed a report and the same is relied upon to pass Ext.P1 order against the petitioner. In 7B application the contention had specifically been raised that the report of the Enforcement Officer has not been served on the petitioner. That being so, Ext.P4 is clearly unsustainable. Therefore, I quash Esxt.P4 order. The 2nd respondent is directed to re-hear the application under Section 17B, after furnishing a copy of the report of the Enforcement Officer to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.8629/08 3