IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16381 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- N. NANDAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES, KUDIKODE CASHEW FACTORY, NEDUMANKAVU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLANTE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKAD, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY STANDING COUNSEL, SRI. N.N. SUGUNAPALAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 16381 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Ext.P1 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 7A of the Act, assessing contributions under the Act. Petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order before the Tribunal by filing Ext.P1 appeal. In the said appeal, the petitioner has also moved a prayer for stay of operation of impugned order and dispense with requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed amount. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that now coercive proceedings are being initiated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents to recover the disputed amount which according to the petitioner is unjustified, since Ext.P2 appeal is pending. The petitioner seeks stay of further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 till Ext.P2 appeal is disposed of. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Provident Funds Organisation also. He opposes the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that even if this court is inclined to W.P.(C).No. 16381 OF 2008 2 consider the petitioner's contention the same shall only be on condition that the petitioner pays substantial portion of the amount in question. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. From Ext.P2 appeal I find that the petitioner has moved for stay of operation of the impugned order and to dispense with requirement of pre-deposit also. When an application for stay and interim order are made in an appeal, the 1st respondent has a duty to consider the same and pass orders expeditiously. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider the prayer of the petitioner for interim order in Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, if, Ext.P2 appeal has been received and is pending. Till orders are passed on the prayer for interim orders, further coercive proceedings for recovery of the balance disputed amount shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will not be entitled to the above reliefs, if Ext.P2 appeal has not been received by the Tribunal. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-