IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 10101 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL HAMEED P,S/O.ALVAI HAJI,AGED 57 YEARS,PARTNER,MALABAR TILE WORKS,FERODE, KOHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE,ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTIL, SC FOR PF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10101/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 14.11.2006 IN WPC NO.29210/2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT 30.1.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXT.P2 LETTER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT DT 12.3.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10101 OF 2007 (C) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, by which the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.2,49,791/- and informed that on failure to pay, steps will be taken to recover the amount. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 judgment, in respect of the said liability, this Court has already granted an instalment facility and he is paying in terms thereof. It is stated that so long as such payment is being made, it is not open to the respondent to take coercive action to recover the said amount. 2. On the other hand, standing counsel for the respondent submits that the liability which is subject matter of Ext.P1, was the liability of the petitioner to pay contribution of Rs.3,90,564/- and that the liability in respect of which Ext.P4 has been issued is the liability arising out of an order under Section 14B of the EPF Act for Rs.2,49,791/-. It is also pointed out that though when the 14B order was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the order before this Court by filing WP(C) No.28909/02, this court did not grant any stay. It is therefore WPC 10101/07 :2 : asserted that the respondent is entitled to realise the amount. 3. The contention of the petitioner can be accepted, provided the liability for the realisation of which Ext.P4 was issued was the one covered by Ext.P1 judgment. As can be seen from the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, the liability which are covered by Exts.P1 and P4 are different and separate. If that be so, Ext.P1 judgment or the payments made thereunder cannot be taken advantage to resist the liability mentioned in Ext.P4. Therefore, the basis on which the writ petition is filed is erroneous. 4. If as stated by the respondent, the liability covered by Ext.P1 is not one in respect of which Ext.P4 has been issued, it is clarified that they will be free to continue the recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount in accordance with law. 5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the amounts due in instalments. 6. I heard the standing counsel also. 7. Having regard to the submissions made, it is directed that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the amount due under WPC 10101/07 :3 : Ext.P4 in six equal monthly instalments, the first instalment of which shall be paid on or before 25th of October 2009 and the subsequent instalments on or before 25th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that in case default is committed, the respondent will be free to continue the recovery proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp