Dismissed

Laxmi Enterprises through Its Proprietor Narottam Das v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2023WPC/5245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a recovery demand via newspaper notice under Section 7A of the EPF Act. Court dismissed writ petition, directing alternative remedy appeal within two months and vacating interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy within two months; interim orders vacated.

Laxmi Enterprises through Its Proprietor Narottam Das Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 5245 of 2012

¶3

Laxmi Enterprises through its Proprietor Narottam Das, son of Late Chabil Das, resident of D-111, Sonari East Layout, P.O. Kagal Nagar, P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, SubRegional Office, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶8

Enforcement Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶9

Recovery Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Jharkhand, District Ranchi

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shashank Saurav, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Sahay, Advocate ---

¶14

04 /08.02.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of demand raised by respondent no. 4 in Prabhat Khabar newspaper dated 20.1.12 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12.31 lakhs within 15 days of publication of notice failing which appropriate legal action will be taken;

¶16

(ii) For a further writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to or act by using any coercive means and/or in furtherance of demand notice published in Prabhat Khabar daily newspaper dated 20.1.12 during the pendency of the instant writ petition.”

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that the impugned notice in the news paper was published pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2008 passed under Section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The order is contained at Annexure- C to the counter-affidavit. He

¶18

¶19

submits that the petitioner may avail the alternative remedy as permissible under law.

¶20

4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is not inclined to proceed with this case any further. However, the petitioner may avail the alternative remedy provided under the aforesaid Act of 1952 against the order dated 25.01.2008 passed under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act of 1952 (Annexure-C) within a period of two months from today.

¶21

5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶23

7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

Pankaj

Laxmi Enterprises through Its Proprietor Narottam Das v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Enterprises through Its Proprietor Narottam Das v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Samir Kumar Ghosh and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ratho Karmali Alias Ratho Vishwakarma Vs District Administration

Rambhawati Devi and Anr. Vs Water Resources Departement

Deepak Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kohinoor Stel Pvt. Ltd. through Its Manager Corporate Affairs Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh Vs Mines and Geological Survey