Madras High CourtWA/798/2017disposed of

M/S.Stepstone Promoters v. Regional Provident Fund

2017-07-25Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran,Honourable Mr Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.A.No.798 of 2017 And W.P.No.15377 of 2017.

M/s Stepstone Promoters Pvt.Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Mothish, S/o Mr.Koteeswaran No.1/1, Sakthi Nagar 2nd Street, Choolaimedu Chennai 600 094 ..Appellant /Petitioner -vs1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Chennai 600 014

2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Chennai 600 014

3. Enforcement Officer Chennai 600 014 ..Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 20.06.2017 made in W.P.No.15377 of 2017. Prayer in W.P.No.15377 of 2017:

This Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records with respect of the notice of summon dated 30.01.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner for proceedings initiated under Section 7 A of the Act vide No. CHN/ TN/ 85626/CCII/ D24/ ENF/REGL/ 2017 to quash the same on the ground is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the 2nd Respondent from further giving effect to the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 30.01.2017 above mentioned.

For Appellant ::

Mr.S.Kamalakannan

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. By order dated 20.6.2017, the learned single Judge has directed that the request of the appellant/writ petitioner seeking the Enforcement Officer's inspection report made on 8.6.2017 should be considered by the second respondent before passing appropriate final orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Since the learned single Judge has already directed that till the disposal of the representation of the writ petitioner, no final order should be passed, if not passed already, however, in variance of the said order, the appellant is seeking for further orders. In our considered opinion, it is for the appellant to approach the authorities and to do the needful in accordance with law, as they cannot seek all the particulars from the respondents.

Rather the appellant can send some responsible officer to personally look into the matter and thereafter do the needful in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P.No.11023 of 2017 is closed.

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Chennai 600 014.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Chennai 600 014.

3. The Enforcement Officer Chennai 600 014.

+3 Ccs to Ms.K. Jayasudha, Advocate sr 52377. W.A.No.798 of 2017 RJ(CO) sp(08/08/2017)