IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10101 of 2007(C)
1. ABDUL HAMEED P,S/O.ALVAI HAJI,AGED 57
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 10101 OF 2007 (C)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, by which
the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.2,49,791/-
and informed that on failure to pay, steps will be taken to recover
the amount. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 judgment, in
respect of the said liability, this Court has already granted an
instalment facility and he is paying in terms thereof. It is stated
that so long as such payment is being made, it is not open to the
respondent to take coercive action to recover the said amount.
2. On the other hand, standing counsel for the
respondent submits that the liability which is subject matter of
Ext.P1, was the liability of the petitioner to pay contribution of
Rs.3,90,564/- and that the liability in respect of which Ext.P4 has
been issued is the liability arising out of an order under Section
14B of the EPF Act for Rs.2,49,791/-. It is also pointed out that
though when the 14B order was issued to the petitioner, the
petitioner challenged the order before this Court by filing WP(C)
No.28909/02, this court did not grant any stay. It is therefore
WPC 10101/07
:2 :
asserted that the respondent is entitled to realise the amount.
3. The contention of the petitioner can be accepted,
provided the liability for the realisation of which Ext.P4 was issued
was the one covered by Ext.P1 judgment. As can be seen from
the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, the liability
which are covered by Exts.P1 and P4 are different and separate.
If that be so, Ext.P1 judgment or the payments made thereunder
cannot be taken advantage to resist the liability mentioned in
Ext.P4. Therefore, the basis on which the writ petition is filed is
erroneous.
4. If as stated by the respondent, the liability covered by
Ext.P1 is not one in respect of which Ext.P4 has been issued, it is
clarified that they will be free to continue the recovery
proceedings for recovery of the amount in accordance with law.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner may be permitted to pay the amounts due in
instalments.
6. I heard the standing counsel also.
7. Having regard to the submissions made, it is directed
that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the amount due under
WPC 10101/07
:3 :
Ext.P4 in six equal monthly instalments, the first instalment of
which shall be paid on or before 25th of October 2009 and the
subsequent instalments on or before 25th of every succeeding
month. It is clarified that in case default is committed, the
respondent will be free to continue the recovery proceedings.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp