The Secretary & Correspondent v. The Assistant Provident Fund

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD and M.P.[MD]No.2 of 2011 The Secretary and Correspondent, A.U.P.E.T., Chinmaya Vidhayalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School, 18, High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

: Appellant Vs.

1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F., Organisation (Sub-Regional Office), N.G.O., "B" Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Recovery Officer, E.P.F., Organisation, (Sub-Regional Office), N.G.O. "B" Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.10.2010 passed in W.P(MD)No.4253 of 2008. Prayer in WP(MD). 4253/ 2008 :

To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made in his proceedings No.TN/TNY/20841/ENF/Circle 11/8FO381/2008 dated 21/04/2008 and quashs the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,80,322/- which was allegedly recovered from petitioniers banker For Appellant : Mr.S.Karthik for M/s.Profexs Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Murali Sankar 1/3

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice] Heard Mr.S.Karthik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Murali Sankar, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Challenge raised is to the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has treated the matter to be infructuous merely on the deposit made by the appellant. We are afraid that this line of reasoning cannot be accepted inasmuch as the lis relating to the cause raised in the petition would not become infructuous on account of compliance of deposit. The lis has to be decided on merits and accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh on merits. It shall be open to learned Counsel for the parties to file appropriate affidavits in support of their claims. The learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of at the earliest keeping in view the nature of the issue raised and the long pendency of the matter.

3. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) MR/RSB To 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F., Organisation (Sub-Regional Office), N.G.O., "B" Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Recovery Officer, E.P.F., Organisation, (Sub-Regional Office), N.G.O. "B" Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2/3

Copy to:

The Section Officer, Writ Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to Mr.S.KARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-105201[F] dated 16/12/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.K.MURALISANKAR, Advocate (SR-105168[F] dated 16/12/2019 ) JUDGMENT MADE IN and M.P.[MD]No.2 of 2011 16.12.2019 MK (03.01.2020) 3P 6C 3/3