IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21250 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M/S.RUBCO CYCLE TYRE AND TUBE FACTORY, VALIAVELICHAM,KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 645. 2. M/S. RUBCO SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD., RUBCO HOUSE, KANNUR 670 002,REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.K.V.MAN0J KUMAR.~ BY ADV. MR. C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.117, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR 670 001. 2. REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.117, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR 670 001. 3. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. MR. THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21250 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts. P1 and P2 orders passed by the first respondent imposing penalty upon the petitioners have been subjected to challenge by filing appeals before the 3rd respondent, along with Exts. P3 and P4 requests to have it considered in the Camp Sitting at Ernakulam. The case of the petitioners is that, quite unfortunately, on the date of hearing, the petitioners could not appear because of some unforeseen circumstances and accordingly, the appeals happened to be dismissed for default, which hence are sought to be restored by filing Exts. P7 and P8 applications, and they are pending consideration before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is constrained to approach this Court, because of the coercive proceedings being taken by the respondents, as borne by Ext. P9, for realization of the amount due from the petitioners, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P7 and P8 W.P. (C) No. 21250 of 2010 : 2 : applications to restore the appeal, in accordance with law, after hearing petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month, from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. All further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall produce copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent, for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd