IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24892 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD CENTRAL SCHOOL CHAKKUVALLI, SOORANAD P.O, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM- 691 001 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNEXE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MANNANIYYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM- 691 001 3. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CHAKKUVALLI BRANCH, SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM- 690 522, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 4. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPALET TRIBUNAL ,9TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-01 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION. R3 BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.24892 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an educational institution affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. Ext.P2 notice was issued by the first respondent covering the Establishment under the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'EPF & MP Act') with retrospective effect from 18.6.2003. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act was conducted. Pursuant to the same, as per Ext.P3, the contribution payable for the period from June 2003 to February 2008 was assessed as Rs.7,38,786.75/-. Felt aggrieved by the said assessment, Ext.P4 appeal was preferred under Section 7-I of the EPF & MP Act. It is still pending consideration before the appellate Tribunal. Pending the appeal, the second respondent initiated recovery steps in terms of Section 8F of the EPF & MP Act as per Ext.P5. The same was challenged in W.P.(C).NO. 32007/2008. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court granted a conditional stay for the recovery proceedings. As per the same, the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- W.P.(C) NO.24892/2010 2 and the appeal was directed to be disposed of. The contention of the petitioner is that on account of the financial contingency, they cannot effect the deposit in terms of Ext.P6 judgment. Therefore, the second respondent issued Ext.P8 prohibitory order. The bank account of the petitioner has been freezed and attached on 7.7.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the amount directed to be deposited as per Ext.P6 judgment, viz., Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner, in fact, after the period stipulated as per Ext.P6 judgment. However, considering the fact that the amount directed to be paid as per Ext.P6 judgment was deposited, the respondents should have lifted the order of attachment issued as per Ext.P8. However, no steps were taken for lifting the order of attachment. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorary quashing Ext.P8 prohibitory order and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the fourth respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 within a reasonable time. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement. They have stated thereunder that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount in time and subsequently, the petitioner has effected payment of W.P.(C) NO.24892/2010 3 Rs.2,00,000/-. A scanning of the rival contentions would reveal that though belatedly, the amount which was directed to be deposited as per Ext.P6 judgment, viz., Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner. The respondents cannot be found at fault for issuing Ext.P8 since it was issued on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the conditional order in Ext.P6. However, taking note of the fact that the amount directed to be paid in terms of Ext.P6 has been paid and Ext.P4 appeal preferred against Ext.P2 order of the assessing authority is still pending before the fourth respondent, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition as hereunder:- In case the petitioner deposits a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of one month from today, the third respondent shall forthwith lift the order of attachment issued as per Ext.P8. In case the petitioner complies with the said condition, the fourth respondent shall consider Ext.P4 appeal expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months thereafter. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.24892/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) NO.24892/2010 5 September, 2010