Disposed

M/s.Palayapalayam Ascs v. The Assistant Provident Fund

Madras HC29 Mar 2016WP/11532/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the plea to quash proceedings but dismissed the prayer on merits. It directed the petitioner to treat the proceedings as a showcause notice and submit a reply. The respondent must then pass a speaking order after considering the reply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit reply within two weeks; respondent directed to pass speaking order within two weeks thereafter.

M/s.Palayapalayam Ascs Vs The Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 29.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.11532 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.9956 of 2016

¶6

M/s.Palayapalayam ASCS Limited, Palayapalayam Post, Sirkazhi Taluk, Nagapattinam District, Rep. by its Secretary, N.Rangasamy .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (PDC), Sub Regional Office, P.B.No.588, Sree Complex, D Block No.18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirappalli - 620 008. Tamil Nadu. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in proceedings TN/SRO-TRY/PDC/C-34/11786/7Q PROC/2015, dated 23.11.2015 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same.

¶10

Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Meenakshi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on direction issued by this Court. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

The petitioner's challenge to the impugned proceedings is on the sole ground that the petitioner has not been afforded reasonable opportunity to place all materials. Prima facie, on

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is seen that though the Secretary of the petitioner Society has appeared before the respondent, but the grievance is that the contentions raised by them were not considered while passing the order. If the petitioner has raised certain contentions, the respondent while demanding interest under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 should accord reasons as to why the contentions raised by the petitioner are not justifiable and why the demand is sustainable. However, this is not evident from the impugned order. It is a settled legal position that when the impugned order is tested before this Court, it has to stand based on the reasons assigned therein and fresh reasons cannot be substituted by way of a counter affidavit. Therefore, on the said ground alone, this Court is inclined to grant a relief to the petitioner. However, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings on the grounds raised by the petitioner.

¶14

In the light of the above, while rejecting the prayer to quash the impugned proceedings, there will be a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as if it is a showcause notice and submit their reply / objections in writing to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such reply / objections, the respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶15

Accordingly, the above Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. r n s -s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy

¶16

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (PDC), Sub Regional Office, P.B.No.588, Sree Complex, D Block No.18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirappalli - 620 008. Tamil Nadu. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Sadasharam, Advocate, SR 19329 ad(co) prk31/3 W.P.No.11532 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.9956 of 2016

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Palayapalayam Ascs v. The Assistant Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Palayapalayam Ascs v. The Assistant Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Srinivasan, The President, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

G.Rathinam, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

P.Balasubramaniam Vs The Secretary to Government

Mr.a.Manivasagan Vs 1.THE Secy., to Govt., Municip

Smt.Aboorvam, Vs The District Collector

K.Natarajan, Vs The District Collector