IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21218 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRAKASH BABU K., PROPRIETOR, M/S.SARAS CASHEW TRADERS, KILLIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 004. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 5. THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT. T.N. GIRIJA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21218 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T After I had already signed the judgment in this writ petition, learned counsel represented that he could not bring to the attention of this Court that the amount covered by Ext. P7 order has not been made over to the Provident Fund Organisation, although Ext. P7 order was passed on 16-3-2007, and this Court had passed the judgment on the assumption that the Bank had already paid the amount to the Provident Fund Organisation. He submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount in instalments and further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7 may be stayed in the meanwhile by reviewing the judgment. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation also. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that there is an apparent mistake on the face of the record, which requires to be corrected and therefore I suo motu recall the judgment dated 15-7-2008 and pass the following judgment. 4. The petitioner challenges Ext. P7 prohibitory order, whereby the 3rd respondent has directed the 5th respondent, who is the banker of the petitioner, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,66,280/- from the account of the petitioner with the Bank, payable by the petitioner as contributions under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, as per Ext. P2 order. Petitioner's contention is that against Ext. P2 order, Ext. P5 appeal has been filed and therefore the recovery, pending that appeal is clearly unsustainable. 5. Since now the petitioner only wants the facility to pay the amount in instalments, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the amounts due W.P.C. No. 21218/2008. -: 2 :- under Ext. P2 in five equal monthly instalments starting from 1-8- 2008. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. Till the entire amount is paid off, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7 order shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one of the instalment, it would be open to the respondents to enforce Ext. P7 order or otherwise recover the amount. Needless to say, the payment would be subject to the result of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. However, if the Bank has already paid the amount covered by Ext. P7 to the Provident Fund Organisation, the same need not be refunded to the petitioner's account, in which event, the realisation of the amount would be subject to the result of Ext. P5 appeal. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.