The High Court set aside an impression that the review petition was inadmissible, halted proceedings, and ordered a fresh hearing after the petitioner deposited the amount demanded.
Ext.P3 order set aside to pass fresh orders. Petitioner to appear on 5.1.2017.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 17572 of 2012 (V)
PETITIONER :
NISSARUDIN, S/O HABEEBULLAH, AGED 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S ARAFA CASHEW COMPANY, RESIDING AT MANCHERIL VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
RESPONDENT :
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-695 201
BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.17572/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
| EXT. P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-2-11 OF THE RESPONDENT |
|---|---|
| EXT. P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02-08-11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER |
| EXT. P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 30-12-11 |
| EXT. P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10-2-12 |
| EXT. P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21-03-12 |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
| EXT.R1(A) | COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7B OF THE ACT DATED 30/08/2011 |
|---|---|
| EXT.R1(B) | COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 01/09/2011 REFLECTING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE PERIOD 09/2003 TO 12/2009 AS PENDING FOR REVIEW U/S 7B. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
W.P.(C).No.17572/2012
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, as against Ext.P1 order issued under Section 7A
of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (for short, the “Act”). Ext.P3 is stated to be an order passed
dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioner under Section 7B
of the Act. The petitioner's case is that he never filed such an
application and what was filed is only an application to set aside the
ex parte order as per Ext.P2 under Section 7A(4) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed as Ext.P3 under Section 7B is legally unsustainable. On the other hand, along with counter affidavit, the respondent produced Ext.R1(a), an application filed by the petitioner
under Section 7B of the Act. This shows that the petitioner had filed
W.P.(C).No.17572/2012
-:2:-
an application. It may be true that the petitioner might have filed an
application under Section 7B nevertheless, once he had filed an application under Section 7B of the Act, he is precluded from
proceeding with an application to set aside the ex parte order.
However, going by Ext.P3 order, it appears that several opportunities
were given to the petitioner and he has not taken part in it. According to the petitioner, posting of the cases were not informed
to him and he was not aware of it.
that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount as demanded in
the impugned orders.
non co-operation of the petitioner, this court is of the view that an
opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner in the light
W.P.(C).No.17572/2012
-:3:-
of the fact that he has deposited the amount as demanded in Ext.P1.
Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is set aside to pass fresh orders. The
petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 5.1.2017 at 11 a.m.
The petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry. Thereafter, appropriate orders shall be passed under Section 7B after hearing the petitioner within a further period of two months. The payment
already effected will be subject to further decision to be taken by the respondent in this matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is precluded from filing an application under Section 7A after having filed one under Section 7B.
Whether an ex parte order dismissing a review petition is maintainable where the petitioner deposited the demanded amount.
Whether the ex parte order dismissing the review petition should be set aside to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
NISSARUDIN
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court