IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1648 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.A.MOHAMMED KUTTY, THELAPPALLIL HOUSE, CHANDIROOR, CHERTHALLAI-688 547, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT BY ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR MR.K.JOHN MATHAI MR.P.BENNY THOMAS MR.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND, COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. R1 BY MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADV.MR.S.GOWTHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1648 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th January, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 letter dated 26.6.2007 sent by the respondent to the petitioner informing him that the respondent has decided to issue warrant of arrest to arrest and detain him in the civil prison in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 8B(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,54,099/- due from the petitioner's establishment is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for both sides submit that the amount demanded in Ext.P5 has been paid in full. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent however submits that besides the amount demanded in Ext.P5, damages levied under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is also due from the petitioner's establishment. The learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the petitioner may be directed to remit the said amounts also in full. 3. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the amount demanded in Ext.P5 has WP(C).No.1648/2008 2 been paid in full, the decision to issue a warrant of arrest to detain the petitioner in civil prison for non-payment of Rs.1,54,099/= does not any longer survive and that if at all further amounts are due from the establishment and payable by the establishment, the remedy of the respondent is to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner also submits that he cannot be proceeded against in the first instance and that the establishment and its assets will have to be proceeded. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said submissions and submits that the petitioner who is one among the Directors can be proceeded against for recovery of the damages/interest under Section 8B of the Act and that it is open to the Employees' Provident Fund Organization to adopt any one or more of the methods set out in Section 8B of the Act to recover the amounts due from the establishment. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In this writ petition, the challenge is only to Ext.P5 notice whereby the petitioner was informed that the respondent has decided to issue a warrant of arrest to arrest and detain him in the civil prison. It is not in dispute that the amount demanded in Ext.P5 has been paid in full. In such circumstances, no further orders are called for in this writ petition except to close it as WP(C).No.1648/2008 3 infructuous, with the observation that if further amounts are due from the petitioner's establishment, it will be open to the Employees' Provident Fund Organization to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law to recover the said amount. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS