IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12926 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.JOSHKUMAR, S/O KARUNAKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOVUNGAL VEEDU, KUTTIKKADU MURI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.C.S.DIAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNEX MANNANIYYA COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-1. 2. ASST. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.12926 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P4 orders of the 1st respondent. Ext.P1 order is a demand notice dated 4.5.2005 wherein the petitioner was directed to pay amounts due from the petitioner as per certificate dated 1.4.2005. Ext.P4 is the order of attachment of the immovable property pursuant to the recovery proceedings. The petitioner now contends that the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 review petition under Section 7B and, pending the same, recovery proceedings are unjust. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for more than one reason. First is that the petitioner has not challenged the original order on the basis of which recovery proceedings have now been initiated. Clearly those orders were passed prior to Ext.P1 which is dated 14.5.2005. That is in 2005. We are in 2008. Even assuming that the petitioner has filed Ext.P3, the same is not in the proper form. Nor has the petitioner produced any proof of having filed the same. Apart from that, from Ext.P1 it is clear that the w.p.c.12926/08 2 certificate for recovery itself was issued on 1.4.2005. Therefore, 7A order itself must have been passed prior to that. Going by that date, Ext.P3 which is dated 7.8.2005 has been filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act for filing an application under Section 7B of the Act. The petitioner has not also filed any appeal against the original order assessing contributions. Therefore, on all counts, the writ petition is not maintainable and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge