IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27061 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, KANNUR CASHEW EXPORTS, KAKKODU P.O., PUNALUR, RESIDING AT ROHINI, VALAKODE, KAKKODU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHYAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695 004 3. C.N. PRASAD, SANTHINIKETHAN (KARIKKATHIL VEEDU) VALAKODE, KAKKODE P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. A.PRTHAPAN, PROPRIETOR, BIBIN CASHEW FACTORY, PRATHAP BHAVAN, NEDUMPANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R1,2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).27061/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner alleges that he entered into a lease agreement with the fourth respondent, with respect to a cashew factory which originally belonged to the third respondent. Apparently, the third respondent has sold the said factory to the fourth respondent as per Ext.P1 sale deed, contends the petitioner. The establishment defaulted payment of contribution due under the EPF Act. Therefore, proceedings have been taken against the owner of the factory. It is after the amount was defaulted that the petitioner is stated to have entered into Ext.P5 lease agreement dated 1.6.2008. Essentially what the petitioner now wants is that the proceedings be continued against the third respondent and seeks restraint on the proceedings against the goods clamed by him to be his and lying in the cashew factory which, he contends, was taken on lease from the fourth respondent. It seems that there is a dispute between respondents 3 and 4. Cashew factory is liable to discharge the amount due to the Provident Fund Commissioner. There is an W.P.(C).27061/2008 2 interim order passed by this Court in a writ petition at the instance of the fourth respondent. But in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is stated to have taken the factory on lease from the fourth respondent. He has no privity of contract with the third respondent. Even according to him, he came into the picture only after the default arose. He cannot seek restraint on proceedings against the third respondent nor can he claim a right over the cashew factory, over and above the statutory claim of the Provident Fund Commissioner. Any interest or right made by him over the Cashew Factory in question, can be pursued subject to the right of the provident Fund Commissioner, as the transaction alleged to have taken place as per Ext.P5 is subsequent to the date on which the default arose. I do not therefore, find may way to issue any direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings against the cashew factory. 2. But learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain goods which belongs to him and which are lying in the factory. If he has a claim in respect of W.P.(C).27061/2008 3 any goods which are lying in the premises of the cashew factory, he is entitled to raise a claim in relation to the same before the recovery officials. If he manages to prove and establish that the goods belong to him and are therefore, not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of any amounts due from the third respondent, then, the competent authority obviously will have to accept his claim. But this is a matter for the petitioner to prosecute and establish. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of holding that if the petitioner prefers a claim petition before the recovery officials, in relation to any goods which are lying in the cashew factory bearing registration No. CHW/TVM/13/560/04, the second respondent, the Recovery Officer, shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order dealing with the claim of the petitioner as such. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs