IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35202 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SURENDRAN C.K., CHATHAN PARAMBIL VEEDU, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA-6. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 3. K.A.SHAJI, S/O.AYYAPPAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 35202 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 11h day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was one of the partners of a firm, which was a defaulter in payment of amounts due under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. For the amounts due from the firm, by Ext.P1, the property belonging to the petitioner has been attached. Petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P3 judgment, wherein this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the 3rd respondent who, according to the petitioner, is the person in and actual control of the firm. Pursuant to the above direction, respondents 1 and 2 proceeded against the 3rd respondent and recovered the amounts. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that despite the recovery of the amounts due, the respondents 1 and 2 are not lifting the attachment of his property effected by Ext.P1 order. Petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:- WP(C) NO. 35202 OF 2009 2 “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to release the attachment ordered as per Ext.P1. b) Hold that the property belonging to the petitioner in Sy No. 325/6 of Aluva West Village cannot be attached for any liability in relation to Prince Security Services run by the 3rd respondent, and c) Issue such other writs, orders and directions as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation would contend that though the dues have been paid, there is delay in payment of those dues, for which the firm is liable to pay interest under Section 7(Q) and damages under Section 14 (B) of the Act. Therefore, the attachment cannot be lifted now, is the contention raised by the standing counsel. 3. Having heard both sides, I am of the opinion that the respondents 1 and 2 cannot hold on to the attachment for amounts which is yet to be computed and demanded from the firm. Admittedly, as on today there is no pending demand by respondents 1 and 2 to be paid either by the petitioner or by the 3rd respondent. If any amount is quantified under Section 7Q and Section 14B in future, it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to WP(C) NO. 35202 OF 2009 3 take appropriate proceedings for recovery of the same after demand is made and payment is defaulted. The respondents cannot, anticipating that the firm may not pay the amount, continue the attachment already made, when presently there is no default. Accordingly, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to lift the attachment effected by Ext.P1 forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns