Allowed

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, v. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

Telangana HC2 Sept 2021WP/12713/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, setting aside an impugned order dated 17.06.2009 for violating principles of natural justice and directing the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate afresh within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appellate Tribunal directed to issue notice, afford opportunity, and adjudicate afresh within six months.

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

H,GH COURTFOR IHE 57 o,;;i,i,' 6.1$Pj ],..|#.",flIf A r HyD ERA BA D "'H?A'#;,li%,lflf fi ffi ,,.*

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WR ITPETI Tto N o: 1271 F2 011

¶6

Be tween

¶7

Th -Z e.Assistant provident Fund Commissioner,, O/o RpFC, Barkatpur,

¶8

Hyderabad

¶9

AND

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

Ill",: ilS|?fi i:.:f SS:ll [:H#r^?j;:?, rribu na r,, S cope Mi no r, c ar e _ 2, 4th

¶12

z Mi:;lr",lfi fr$:sicocentre,, 1 6-1 o-27 t 1 as t 10, Municipar corony Main Road,

¶13

"'RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 at +s^ /-^-^a:a ,. c rcumstances ,,.,"i ,.'ii,"'?o,,or,u,ilp"r:d:#il:'fi: ;Ll"S:XfH:,;fl",Xil"I"Ji: rssue a writ' or order' or Direction especiatiy in'*r" n"trr" ot writ or dei[laiii,,,ng j,,.f,.:T,, p,,, "^{0 i} "^{i#ii' i,i,} " ;% l ? i ;%? :'": fl:'ll1 J: ;x; i:i,, ",:l:

¶15

WP MP. NO :154/b oF 20 11

¶16

Petition under section,151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the ;L.ilJii:fllT;iB:i,:J"'t"^{p"titi".lt["'rii;i'ffitl mav be preased} to expedite the

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. G R SUDHAKAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. B MANOJ KUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl. V HARI HARAN

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE^SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI}

¶22

w P.N^{o.727 130F20 11}

¶23

ODEB:

¶24

This rvrit^{petitionis filed seeking the follorving relief:}

¶25

'^{r, ;ssue a Vrit or Ordcr or Dircclionespcciallvir rhe nntu'e of writ of} Cerl,orari cauing^{forrherecords} 'elaring^{to rhe order dared1?-6-2009} pnssed in APpea'^{ATA No'820(1) 2004and qu'sh the same as iuegal and} unjusr in^{so f.ras it is.gainstthe petitioner is concemed and pass such} orh( r order^{or orderc as this Hon'ble Courl deemsiust rndnecessa^'rn} the circumsBnc€s^ofthecase "

¶26

Heard learned^{counselappearing fot the parties'}

¶27

Learned counsel^{appearing for the petitionercontended that} the u.ithout appreciating^{any of the contentionsraised bv the} petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal^{had mechanically allou'ed the} appeal in favour of tl-re 2"'l respondent.^{Learned counsel fr-rrther} contendcd that appropriate orders be^{passed in the writ petitionbv} setting aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2009^{passed in} Appeal ATA No.820(1)2004 and the matter mav be remanded to the Appeliate^'fribunal and let the Appellate Tribunal adjudicate thc matter after giving an opportunity to all the affected parties.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the 2.d respondent, in principle, agreed that the matter may be remanded to the Appellate Ttibunal so as to enable the Appellate Tribunal to consider the case of the 2"d respondent and pass orders afresh, in accordance u,ith law-.

¶29

Having considcred the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that since the impugned order d.ated, 17.06.2009 passed in Appeal ATA

¶30

No.820(1)2004 is in violation of principles of natural iustice, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.06.2009 passed in Appeal ATA No.820(1)2004 is set aside. The Appellate Tribunal^is directed^{to issuenotice to all the} alfected persons and^{after affordingan opportunityto the affected} persons, the Appellate^{Tribunalshall adjudicatethe matter afresh} and pass approptiate^{orderswithina periodof six months fromthe} date of receipt^{of a copYof this order, in accordance with law' No}

¶32

c0sts.

¶33

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pendingshall stand}

¶34

closed,

¶35

That Rule Nisi has been^{made absolute as above witness the Hon'blethe} Acting chief Justice M.S.^{Ramachandra Rao on this Thursday, The sixth day of} September, Two Thousand^{and twenty one.}

¶36

SD/. T,KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/I cb

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

l.TheEmployeesProvidentFundAppellateTribunal"scopelt/inor'Care-2'

¶40

4th Floor, Karkaduman^{Court, LakshmiNagar,}

¶41

One CC to^{Sri. G R Sudhakar AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶42

One CC^{to Sri. V Hari Haran AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶43

+. On" CC to Sri.^{B Mano.i Kumar' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶44

Two CD^CoPies

¶45

One SPare^CoPY.

PM C-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912021

ORDER

WP.No.12713 of 2011

{ ,i-si AI;,1
co--l 3 r slP20?l
-1

¶52

Allowing the Wp Without costs.

¶53

frn

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, v. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, v. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

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

Md.Yakub Ali Vs Apsrtc., Rep. by its Vc and MD

Jashin Bansal, Vs The Union of India

Md.Yakub Ali, S/o. Ashraf Ali Vs The Regional Manager

Prof. S Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Bmr Degree and Pg College Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

G. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs the Zonal Manager, LIC Ofindia, and 3 Others