IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16882 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTER, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.RAJASREE AJITH. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPFO, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF LABOUR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.GIRIJA, S.C, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16882/2010-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: NOTICE ISSUED BY R.1. DTD. 15/09/2009. EXT.P.2: NOTICE DTD. 19/11/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY R.1. DTD. 14/12/09. EXT.P.4: ORDER OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DTD. 12TH FEBRUARY 2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16882 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the condition in Ext.P4 interim order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal directing the deposit of 20% of the assessed amount. According to the petitioner, the deposit of a portion of the assessed amount is not being insisted upon by the Tribunal at present. He has produced before me an interim order passed by the very same Tribunal in another appeal, ATA No.244(7) of 2010. In view of the above order, the petitioner seeks a similar treatment as meted out to the appellant in ATA No.244(7) of 2010. 2. The Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization opposes the above submission pointing out that there are decisions justifying the stipulation of deposit of a portion of the assessed amount as a condition for the grant of stay. 3. Since the limited relief that is sought for by the wpc No.16882/2010 2 petitioner is only to set aside Ext.P4 and to direct the second respondent to reconsider the same, I refrain from considering the above question or entering any finding with regard to the same. Therefore, Ext.P4 order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Until such orders are passed, coercive steps shall not be initiated for recovery of the amounts that are subject matter of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/