IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 19843 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.ANZAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AJMEER CASHEW COMPANY, MAYLAPORE, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 589. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANIYYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM-691 001. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.19843 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment engaged in the business of processing cashew. The factory was formerly run by his father. It was leased to him in 2008. In respect of contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act from September 2004 to July 2008, proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.15,91,782/-, by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7B of the Act seeking review of the order passed under Section 7A. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner has documents in support of his contentions, which if considered, would prove the petitioner's case satisfactorily. But unfortunately for the petitioner, because of reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not effectively participate in the proceedings and the petitioner should. therefore, be given another opportunity to prove his case before the 1st respondent. 2. With the help of the counter affidavit filed, the respondent stoutly opposes the prayer. According to the respondent, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to place his case before the respondent, which the petitioner has not availed of. 2 3. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to place his case before the respondent with supporting documents which now he seeks to produce. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondent shall reconsider the entire matter in the light of the documents to be produced by the petitioner expeditiously. The petitioner shall co-operative with the enquiry by the respondent and attend the hearing with all evidence in his possession. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge