1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.2797 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1of 2011 M/s.Suri Dairy Farm, 1-6-15, Anaikulam Road, Surandai – 625 859, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, Represented through its Managing Partner K.Subbu Rathinam : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Tirunelveli – 627 007, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Tirunelveli – 627 007, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in TN/TNY/46300/RO/2011, dated 24.02.2011 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to fix the hearing under Section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner on 09.02.2011 and consider the matters on merits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandra Bose For Respondents : Mr.K.Shankar Murali O R D E R Mr.K.Shankar Murali, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 24.02.2011, directing the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to remit a sum of Rs.3,12,918/- and further intimating that in case of failure, criminal action will be initiated. 3. Earlier, when the Enforcement Officer attached the generator at the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.7360 of 2008 to quash the said proceedings with a further prayer, directing the first respondent to re-consider the matter on merits under Section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on the basis of the review application. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to file the review application along with the returns and the first respondent was directed to consider the said review application in accordance with law. However, the petitioner has not chosen to send a review application in time. In view of the said fact, the first respondent could not consider the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have removed the generator, which was attached by the respondents. Hence, by the impugned order dated 24.02.2011, the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.3,12,918/- immediately and informed further that failing which, criminal action will be initiated against the petitioner for removal of the attached generator without the consent of the Recovery Officer. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition. 4. The admitted facts are that the petitioner, after the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition referred to above, did not send any review application to the first respondent. Without filing the review application, the petitioner cannot expect the first respondent to pass order in his favour. Now, it is stated that the review application has been filed. However, in the meantime, the petitioner should not have removed the generator, which was attached by the respondents. In view of the said act, the respondents have directed the petitioner by the impugned order to remit the amount referred to above. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to pass the following order: ● The first respondent is directed to consider the review application sent by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; ● Till such consideration, the first respondent shall not enforce that the petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.3,12,918/-; ● The petitioner shall restore the generator, which was removed without the consent of the Recovery Officer in the same place, where it was originally in existence, within one week; ● The review application has to be disposed of, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Tirunelveli – 627 007, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Tirunelveli – 627 007, Tirunelveli District. +1cc to Mr.P.Chandrabose, Advocate, Sr.No.5695 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.2797 of 2011 Dated:- 10.03.2011 SML SMA/25.03.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/