IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29926 of 2008(K)
1. M/S.MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :13/10/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).29926/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P9 orders
passed by the second respondent under the EPF Act.
Admittedly, Ext.P5 order was an ex parte order.
Apparently, representative of the petitioner did not
appear before the Assessing Authority because there
was a change in the Management in the petitioner-
College. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 application for setting
aside the ex parte order. Same has been dismissed
under Ext.P9.
2. Normally I would have relegated the petitioner
for an alternate remedy under the EPF act. But I find
on a reading of Ext.P9 that there was non
consideration of the contentions taken up by the
petitioner for the reasons afforded in Ext.P8, except in
the last paragraph. The entirety of Ext.P9 is a
reproduction of Ext.P8 and this does not seem to be a
proper exercise of jurisdiction.
W.P.(C).29926/2008
2
3. In the circumstances, Ext.P9 is set aside. Second
respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 and pass fresh
orders in accordance with law, after affording the
petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Fresh orders
shall be passed within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs