IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17400 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.SHARON FOODS, KODIMATHA, M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 039, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER PHILIP P.JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA, SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.SREEVALSAN.V. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001, KERALA. 2. THE RECOVERY/ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001, KERALA. 3. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17400 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings for recovery initiated against him by the respondents. The petitioner's establishment is already covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short) and he is regularly paying contributions in respect of his employees. However, as per the impugned proceedings, contributions have been determined in respect of the pre-discovery period and amounts have been demanded seeking coverage of the establishment from 29.8.2007. The petitioner has challenged the said determination order by filing a review petition under Section 7B of the Act, which is Ext.P5. Photostat copy of the postal receipt seen on the first page of Ext.P5 shows that the review petition was despatched by post on 29.4.2010. Ext.P6 has been issued apparently after the receipt of Ext.P5. wpc No.17400/2010 2 2. According to Mr.Joy Thattil Ittoop, the counsel for the respondents his instructions are to the effect that Ext.P6 was issued on 30.4.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner would be given an opportunity of being heard, that his contentions would be considered and that the demand Ext.P6 would not be enforced until final orders are passed on Ext.P5. 3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 review petition in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. Orders as indicated above shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such final orders are passed, coercive steps to recover the amounts demanded shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/