Kerala High Court
M/ S. Goldview Vyapar Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Regional Provident Fund ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:13452
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
M/ S. GOLDVIEW VYAPAR PVT LTD,
AGED 50 YEARS
PEERMEDU, IDUKKI REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, MR. BINOD.J. KULAKKATIL, PIN -
685531
BY ADVS.
V.B.HARI NARAYANAN
FAZEEN FAISAL KOMBANEZHUTH
NAMRIN SHAJU
RESPONDENT(S):
1 ASSISTANT REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB
REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
2 RECOVERY OFFICER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-
REGIONAL OFFICE ,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADV JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:13452
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an establishment engaged in
plantation business. Due to default in payment of contribution
under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, the respondents attached the entire
extent of 4215 acres of tea plantation at Peermedu. According
to the petitioner, if the property of the petitioner is properly
valued, it would fetch an amount of Rupees 250 Crores. It is
contented that attachment of an extent of 34 hectares alone
is sufficient to realise the entire proceedings due to the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
2. The petitioner approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C.)No. 24003/2020 for a direction to the respondent
to consider the request of the petitioner to release the rest of
the property from attachment. This Court by judgment dated
07.12.2020 directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass
orders on the request of the petitioner. The 1 st respondent
passed an order stating that only after obtaining valuation
report of the property, further action for release of the
property can be made.
2025:KER:13452
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
3. The said order was challenged before this
Court in W.P.(C) No.21497 of 2021 and this Court set aside the
order of the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent or
the competent officer to pass fresh orders with regard to the
release of the property as requested by the petitioner.
4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P7 request to confine the attachment to 34.1124 hectares
of land, stating that, the same would be sufficient to realise
the entire dues to the Employees Provident Fund
Organization. However, Ext.P7 was rejected by Ext.P8 order.
Challenging Ext.P8, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by
respondents 1 and 2. Paragraph 13 of the affidavit reads as
follows;
"13. The above writ petitioner has been filed
as a means of delay tactics to buy more time
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
pending matter for remitting the outstanding
dues. As huge sum of EPF dues are still pending
to be paid by the petitioner, lifting of attachment
over 34.1124 hectares of land as claimed in the
writ petition would prejudicially affect the
Employees Provident Fund, which in turn would
affect the Social Security Cover offered to the
workers of the establishments under the control
2025:KER:13452
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
and management of the petitioner. The
petitioner is having more than 1583 Hectares of
land in their possession, which can be
mortgaged for availing financial assistance/loans
from Banks and there is absolutely no reason for
lifting attachment over the 34.1124 hectares of
land, as claimed in the writ petition."
6. When the matter came up for consideration
today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Ext.P8 is passed without considering the contentions of the
petitioner in Ext.P7. It is further submitted that the petitioner
would submit a written proposal before the 1 st respondent with
a proposal to lift the attachment over 34.1124 hectares of
land and a direction may be issued to the 1 st respondent to
consider the same in accordance with law.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that, if such a proposal is
received, the same will be considered in accordance with law.
8. There will a direction to the petitioner to
submit written proposal as submitted by the counsel within
one month from today and there will be a direction to the 1 st
respondent to consider the same in accordance with law,
within a period of one month from the date of its receipt.
2025:KER:13452
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
9. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any views on the merits of the claim made by the
petitioner.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
GBG
2025:KER:13452
WP(C) NO. 19496 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19496/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIRICATE ISSUED BY
THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SHOWING THE
ESTIMATION OF LOSS SUFFERED BY THE
PETITIONER EVERY YEAR UPTO 2019
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 1/11/21
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT
DATED 7/ 12/2021
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ONE-MAN
COMMISSION DATED 31 / 10/22
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COOT IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO: 16/ 12
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/5/2024 IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO: 16/ 12 IN WPC NO
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 29/4/24
SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
3/5/24
