Dismissed

Kodaikanal Christian College v. the Enforcement Officer

Madras HC23 Oct 2024WP(MD)/10012/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A college challenged a show cause notice issued by EPF authorities proposing prosecution and sought return of an attached sum. The court held that a show cause notice is not open to quashing and dismissed the writ with directions to reply within four weeks, with the authority to grant personal hearing and decide in four more weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kodaikanal Christian College Vs the Enforcement Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.10012 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.10012 of 2018 and

¶7

WMP(MD)Nos.9150, 9151 of 2018

¶8

Kodaikanal Christian College, Prakashapuram, Kodaikanal – 624 104. Rep. by its Chairman Samuel Abraham

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Enforcement Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chinna Chockikulam,

¶12

Madurai – 625 002.

¶13

2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee's Provident Fund Organization, No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chinna Chockikulam,

¶14

Madurai – 625 002.

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

1/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP(MD)No.10012 of 2018

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶20

seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the show cause notice issued by the first respondent in No.MD/MDU/41308/EO/DO/MDU/M.1/7A/SCN/2018, dated

¶21

06.03.2018, quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to return the sum of Rs.2,31,332/- and release the Bank

¶22

Attachment Order.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravikumar *****

¶24

ORDER

¶25

What is impugned in this writ petition is nothing but a show cause notice, issued by the respondents, dated 06.03.2018 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched for certain offences.

¶26

2.Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to respond to the notice and raise all the grounds before the

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/4

¶29

WP(MD)No.10012 of 2018

¶30

authority, along with materials, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall consider the same, provide an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, within a further period of four weeks therefrom.

¶31

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

Index : Yes / No 23.10.2024 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk

¶33

3/4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP(MD)No.10012 of 2018

¶36

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶37

¶38

WP(MD)No.10012 of 2018

¶39

23.10.2024

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

4/4

Kodaikanal Christian College v. the Enforcement Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kodaikanal Christian College v. the Enforcement Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management Vs The Special Joint Commissioner Of Labour

M/s.Thanjavur West Sarvodaya Sangam Vs The Employees Provident Fund Organization

M/S.Sitalakshmi Mills Limited, Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S. J.P. Tobacco Products (P) Vs Regional Provident Fund

M/S. Bishop Ganadhasan Vs the Regional Provident Fund

Kalasamirakki Kudiyiruppu Vs the Joint Commissioner