IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 5509 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MEDICAL COLLEGE CATERING WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., T/993, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER, C & R, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.5509 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Society registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. The petitioner is also an establishment covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order dated 8.1.2010 issued by the third respondent threatening coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts shown therein. According to the petitioner, the amounts demanded have been paid, as stated in Ext.P2. It is submitted that Ext.P1 is dated 8.1.2010 and the same has been issued directing the petitioner to produce evidence of remittances before the Enforcement Officer on 8.1.2010 at 11 am. Therefore, it is pointed out that the issue of Ext.P1 was only a make believe and that it was not intended to afford an effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce the records that were sought to be produced. According to the petitioner, initiation of coercive proceedings to recover the amount demanded without Wpc 5509/2010 2 affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents, is without any justification, whatsoever. He therefore prays for the grant of the opportunity that has been offered to him as per Ext.P1. 2. It is pointed out by the standing counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation that all notices as required by law have to be given to the petitioner, as is evident from Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents. The amounts that are sought to be recovered have been quantified only in accordance with law. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. It is not in dispute that Ext.P1 was issued to the petitioner directing him to produce documents in proof of the remittances made. However, I notice that Ext.P1 is dated 8.1.2010 and that the petitioner has been directed to submit the documents on the very same day at 11 am. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the issue of Ext.P1 cannot be said to have afforded an effective opportunity to the petitioner to place and prove his case. I also notice that Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents are all of the year, 2008 and that Ext.P1 has been issued subsequent to the said proceedings. Therefore, Wpc 5509/2010 3 since the authority had decided to give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence of remittances before the Enforcement Officer (Recovery), the contention of the petitioner that he could not avail the opportunity because of the discrepancy in Ext.P1 is certainly justified. In the above circumstances, it is necessary that the petitioner is given an opportunity to produce evidence of the remittances in compliance with Ext.P1. I feel that a fresh opportunity could be given to the petitioner for the above purpose. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to issue a fresh notice in terms of Ext.P1 and to proceed further in the matter only after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence of his remittances, as directed in Ext.P1. Till such orders are passed, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as indicated above, all coercive steps to enforce the demands made on the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk