IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28168 of 2010(U)
1. N.NANDAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 28168 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Proprietor of Vishnu Cashew
Company, Kollam. This writ petition has been filed
challenging Ext.P4 whereby he was called upon to deposit
30% of the assessed amount as per Ext.P1. The said order
was passed by the Tribunal as a condition for admitting the
appeal preferred against Ext.P1 and also for staying the
implementation of the impugned order. According to the
petitioner, earlier under similar circumstances, he had
approached this Court and this Court as per Ext.P5 interfered
with a similar order and taking in to account the financial
position of the company modified the impugned order.
Evidently, at the time of passing of Ext.P5 order the
respondents have raised serious objections. Ext.P5 order was
passed after considering the rival contentions and admittedly,
as per the same the order whereby the petitioner was directed
to pay 40% of the assessed amount involved in the said writ
petition was modified to the extent of 20% of the amount
assessed. Having perused Exts.P1, P4 and P5 in this writ
WPC.28168/2010
: 2 :
petition, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a
relief as has been granted to him as per Ext.P5 judgment. In
fact, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposed the same. However, taking note of the
fact that under similar circumstances this Court has issued
Ext.P5, I find no reason to take a different view in this matter.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal in accordance
with law, on merits. Since the respondents have already been
directed to keep in abeyance all coercive steps till the disposal
of the appeal, by the Tribunal, there is no need to pass an
order to that effect. Therefore, order in Ext.P5 is modified
only to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit 30% of
the assessed amount. Accordingly, there will be a direction to
the first respondent to consider the appeal on merits on
condition that the petitioner remits an amount equivalent to
15% of the amount determined as per Ext.P1 proceedings.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge