IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11788 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMMED NIYAZ, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AYMEN INDUSTRIES, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MANNANIYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MANNANIYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. SHIHABUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SN CASHEW, THADAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, TKM COLLEGE P.O., KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690 004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.11788 of 2008(C) ======================= Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an establishment which is sought to be covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, for which the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P1 order under Section 7A of the Act. Petitioner's grievance is that against that order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 review petition under Section 7B of the Act and while that application is pending the 2nd respondent has initiated coercive recovery proceedings by Ext.P4. The petitioner contends that the coercive recovery proceedings while a petition under Section 7B is pending, is totally unjust and arbitrary. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation also. The learned standing counsel submits that since in spite of notices, the petitioner failed to appear before the 2nd respondent in 7A proceedings, the 2nd respondent was forced to pass Ext.P1 order exparte and W.P.(C) No.11788/2008/C -2- therefore, 7B application has no merit. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The right under Section 7B is a statutory right available to the petitioner. Petitioner has exercised that right by filing Ext.P3 application. That being so, the 2nd respondent has a statutory duty to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application. Coercive recovery proceedings in the meanwhile is clearly unjust and arbitrary. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 application as expeditiously as possible. While considering the same, the 2nd respondent shall also issue notice and hear the person who according to the petitioner, has been running the establishment during the relevant period. Till Ext.P3 application is heard and disposed of, further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 including Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp