Telangana High Court
WP/23774/2006 of Manair Education Society, Yellandu Cross Roads, Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees on 28 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 23774 of 2006 Dated: 28-12-2006 Between: Manair Education Society, Yellandu Cross Roads, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Provident Fund commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda,
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 23774 of 2006
Between:
Dated: 28-12-2006
Manair Education Society,Yellandu Cross Roads, Khammam.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Assistant Provident Fund commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal and 3others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 23774 of 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the firstrespondent dated 05-07-2006 whereunder the application preferred by thepetitioner to set aside the order dated 28-03-2006 was rejected.
It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under Section 7 A of theEmployees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘theAct’), the first respondent made an assessment for the period from 7/93 to9/05. It appears that the petitioner has already paid the amount as determinedunder Section 7A of the Act. However, subsequently, the first respondent, byorder dated 28-03-2006 passed under Section 14 B of the Act, levied a sum ofRs.32,24,106/- as damages and interest payable under Section 7 Q of the Actfor belated remittance made by the petitioner. Alleging that the said order beingan ex parte order, is liable to be set aside, it appears that the petitioner made anapplication under Sub-section (4) of Section 7 A of the Act. The said applicationwas rejected as not maintainable under the impugned order, which is underchallenge in this writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents and having regard to the provisions ofthe Act, I am unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity.Even assuming that the order dated 28-03-2006 made under Section 14 B of theAct was an ex parte order, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to filean appeal under Section 7 I of the Act. Hence, the application under Section 7A(4) of the Act was rightly rejected.
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as againstthe amount levied under Section 14 B of the Act, a sum of Rs.4,84,417/- was already recovered by therespondents by attaching the Bank account of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However the petitioner isgranted leave and liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 7 I of the Act. If anysuch appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the sameshall be entertained and decided on merits. Pending such appeal, the order,dated 28-03-2006 shall remain suspended provided the petitioner deposits halfof the amount levied under the order dated 28-03-2006, after deductingRs.4,84,417/- which was already recovered from the petitioner, within a periodof six weeks from today. No costs.
______________
G. ROHINI, J