IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23699 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.5 TO 10/2008 IN CC.5/2008 of C.J.M.PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.MOHANAN, S/O.A. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 52, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS, RAM ARCADE, SECOND FLOOR, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, NOW WORKING AS THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M/S. CHAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REP. BY SRI.R. MURUKESAN, GENERAL MANAGER. 2. T. RAGHUNATH, MANAGING DIRECTOR DOOR NO. 8, D. JAYAWARDHANA NAGAR PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE-641 004. 3. R. MURUKESAN, GENERAL MANAGER, B-95, PALM LEGEND, OPP. POST OFFICE ONDI PUDUR, COIMBATORE-641 005. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.C.5/08 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.73/08 DT. 1.7.2008 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED IN C.C. NO. 9/08 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED IN C.C.NO.5/08 OF THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. /TRUE COPY/ R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 23699 of 2008 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Enforcement Officer under the EPF and MP Act. In such capacity he had filed complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. Subsequent to the filing of the complaints, he has been transferred out of Palghat. According to the petitioner he had filed the complaints only in his official capacity as the Enforcement Officer under the EPF and MP Act. Now that he has been transferred out of Palghat his successor in Palghat will be prosecuting the complaints. He is aggrieved by the insistence of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that he must be personally present before the Court on all dates of posting. 2. Report of the learned C.J.M. was called for. The learned C.J.M. submitted a report. I have perused the same. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is merit in the grievance of the petitioner. His personal presence is not necessary at all for prosecution of the complaints. He is not to W.P.C.No. 23699 of 2008 2 be examined as a witness in the case on the side of the prosecution. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the petitioner's personal presence need not be insisted by the learned C.J.M. unless either side summons him as a witness to tender evidence as a witness in the case. In the absence of such requirement of the presence of the petitioner to tender evidence as a witness of either side, it is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to insist on the personal presence of the petitioner. If the complainant in the complaint is represented by the present incumbent holding office as Enforcement Officer, the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted in the instant case or in other similar cases where the petitioner has preferred the complaints in his capacity as the Enforcement Officer. 3. This writ petition is allowed. The above directions are issued. It is submitted that coercive processes have been issued insisting on the personal presence of the petitioner. Such processes shall not now be executed or enforced against the petitioner. (R. BASANT) tm Judge W.P.C.No. 23699 of 2008 3 R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 23699 of 2008 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Heard. Admitted. The petitioner is the Enforcement Officer under the EPF and MP Act. In such capacity he had filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. He has now been transferred out of Palghat. The grievance of the petitioner is that the CJM is not permitting the petitioner to be represented by the incumbent presently in office and that his personal presence is being insisted by the learned CJM. This petition was originally filed in respect of C.Cs. 5 to 10/08 pending before the CJM, but now the prayer is limited to C.C. 5 of 2008. 2. I feel persuaded to call for a report from the CJM, Palghat. Is it correct that such insistence is made in cases filed by the petitioner in his official capacity as the Enforcement Officer under the EPF & W.P.C.No. 23699 of 2008 4 MP Act? The report of the learned Magistrate must reach this Court by 19.8.2008. Until then the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted in all such cases unless the complainant wants to record his evidence. If the complainant does not want to examine the petitioner as a witness, such personal presence need not be insisted at all. It is further directed that processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 19.8.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge HO tm