IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 13295 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MR.MANISH.M.SHARMA, 1/15, DUTCH CEMETRY ROAD, KOCHI-01. 2. M/S.RAM BHADUR THAKUR LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.MANISH M.SHARMA, 1/15, DUTCH CEMETRY ROAD, KOCHI-01. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685 A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 3. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (CPFC), BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110017. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. FOR R2 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC FOR R1 SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12597 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 13295 of 2006 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the consent order dated 19.8.1999. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the Judgment in Civil Appeal No.9446/2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 21.3.2006. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the notice enclosing Recovery Certificate dated 29.3.2000. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the Recovery Certificate dated 15.3.2005. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the summons dated 15.12.2005. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the interim order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 25.1.2006. Ext.P7 :- Copies of the Attachment orders. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the notice dated 20.4.2006. Ext.P9 :- Copy of the notice dated 10.5.2006. Ext.P10 :- Copy of the letter issued by the 2nd respondent dated 24.3.2006. Respondent's Exhibits :- Annexure-I :- Copy of a detailed statement showing the estate-wise break up of the defaulted dues/damages. Annexure-II :- Copy of the notice dated 28.8.2001. Annexure-III :- Copy of the proclamations dated 22.10.2001. Annexure-III(a) :- Copy of the notification of the proclamation in leading news daily. Annexure-IV :- Copy of the news item in the Malayala Manorama daily dt.30.11.2001. Annexure-V :- Copy of the proclamation published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 10.2.2006. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.13295 of 2006 & 12597 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T Since common issues and common facts are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard jointly and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the former writ petition, the 1st petitioner is the Director of M/s.Ram Bhadur Thakur Limited which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and said company itself is the 2nd petitioner. At the time of admitting the former writ petition this Court passed an interim order staying the sale of properties covered by Ext.P8 and making it clear that the proceedings could go on. In fact, as per Ext.P8 the respondents have attached the residential building of the 1st petitioner and the same was proposed to be brought into sale as per Ext.P9. W.P.(C) Nos.13295 of 2006 & 12597 of 2010 -: 2 :- Pursuant to the interim order dated 25.5.2006 the respondents proceeded against the properties of the company and in fact, brought to sale portions of seven out of the nine estates. 3. The latter writ petition has been filed mainly with prayers to quash Exts.P6 and P7 and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to furnish the details of sale proceeds recovered by sale of the estates under Ext.P1 proclamation of sale and the manner in which the sale proceeds were accounted for and appropriated. Subsequently, the respondents have filed a statement and an additional statement. 4. In view of the specific submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both these writ petitions, I think it unnecessary to delve into the facts and contentions, in detail. Indisputably, the amount sought to be recovered falls under the heads of dues towards the amount payable under the Employees Provident Funds and W.P.(C) Nos.13295 of 2006 & 12597 of 2010 -: 3 :- Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 and the schemes framed thereunder, the interest payable in terms of Section 7Q under the said Act and the damages recoverable under Section 14B of the said Act. Admittedly, Ext.P3 series of the year 2009, in W.P.(C)No.12597 of 2010 would reveal that the estates belonging to the petitioners were brought under the purview of a rehabilitation package of the Government of India. As per the rehabilitation package, the amount payable under the penal damages is payable within a span of 10 years. In other words, the said amount covered under the said head is required to be paid only within a period of 10 years. Therefore, at present the liability of the petitioner for discharging the said amount need not be gone into in this writ petition even according to the respondents. 5. Now, what remains is liability of the petitioner towards the aforementioned dues and interest payable thereon. The admitted position discernible from the statement and additional statement filed on behalf of the W.P.(C) Nos.13295 of 2006 & 12597 of 2010 -: 4 :- respondents is that in respect of Koliekanam Estate belonging to the petitioner's group, the interest outstanding based on the proceedings already initiated, is only Rs.64,88,921/-. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the dues outstanding in respect of the said estate has already been recovered by the respondents. Besides the aforesaid amount of Rs.64,88,921/- the petitioner is also liable to pay the amount specifically mentioned under paragraph 5 of the statement, ie; to the tune of Rs.28,50,887/-. The aforesaid liability has arisen on account of the coverage of the administrative office located at Kochi as an independent establishment under the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the first respondent in W.P.(C)No.12597 of 2010. There is also no dispute with respect to the fact that the amount outstanding in respect of the other estates belonging to the petitioner's group was already recovered by the sale of such estates. In short, the liability arising out of the proceedings initiated W.P.(C) Nos.13295 of 2006 & 12597 of 2010 -: 5 :- and still remaining to be discharged is only an amount of Rs.93,39,808/- (Rs.64,88,921/- + Rs.28,50,887/-). True that it is over and above the amount recoverable towards the damages and payable in terms of rehabilitation package. In the circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined the prayers to one for a direction to the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to pay off the aforesaid liability in instalments. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that these writ petitions, in view of the circumstances expatiated earlier, can be disposed of as hereinunder:- The petitioners shall be permitted to pay off the liability outstanding to the tune of Rs.93,39,808/- (Rs.64,88,921/- and Rs.28,50,887/-) in 15 equal monthly instalments commencing from 10th day of January, 2011. The balance instalments shall be paid by the petitioners on or before 10th day of every succeeding months. It is made W.P.(C) Nos.13295 of 2006 & 12597 of 2010 -: 6 :- clear that if the petitioner commits any default in payment of instalments as directed above, it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. In the circumstances, Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.13295/2006 is set aside. It is made clear that for the purpose of recovering the interest outstanding from Manjumali Estate mentioned in the additional statement, it will be open to the respondents to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with law against the concerned establishment. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE Jvt