IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17814 of 2009(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.SOMARAJAN,PROPRIETOR, M/S.KAILAS CASHEW EXPORTS,PEZHOOKONAM, CHEERANKAVU, KOLLAM-691 505. BY ADV. MR.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA),BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER,REGIONAL OFFICE(KERALA) ANDAMUKKAM,KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,NEW DELHI. R1 BY MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. MR.M.CHANDRA BOSE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 17814 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Challenging Exhibit-P1 order passed by the assessing authority under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal. He also filed an application for dispensation of pre-deposit. The Tribunal vide Exhibit-P4 order directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the assessed amount. According to the petitioner, he filed Exhibit-P5 application for modification of the said order. It seems that the Tribunal has heard the said application. According to the petitioner, even the appeal itself has been heard. In the meanwhile, the proceedings for recovery of the assessed amount has been initiated against the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. W.P ( C) No. 17814 of 2009 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. He contends that Exhibit-P4 itself is an interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal and there is no provision for variation of the same. Taking note of the fact that Exhibit-P5 application was moved before the Tribunal, I think it is appropriate that the proceedings for enforcement of Exhibit-P1 order be kept in abeyance. Proceedings pursuant to Exhibit-P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. It is ordered accordingly. In the meanwhile, if the Tribunal passess order varying Exhibit-P5 order or does not pass any order whatsoever then the respondent shall be entitled to proceed to enforce Exhibit-P7 in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 17814 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No. 17814 of 2009 4