IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2007 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 32014 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.J.POULOSE, MUKKANNICKAL HOUSE, OPPOSITE CONVENT, NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.32014 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging proceedings for recovery of damages and interest under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner was not served with orders pursuant to which recovery proceedings have been initiated. 2. Respondents have filed counter affidavit producing the orders pursuant to which the recovery proceedings have been initiated. Although a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has not stated that he has not received those orders, which have now been produced by the Provident Fund Organisation. In the above circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging the said orders appropriated as per the statute, if he can legally do the same. Without prejudice to such right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd