Madras High Court
Sri Ranilakshmi Ginning Spinning ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 19 July, 2021
W.P.No.7750 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.7750 of 2015 and
M.P.No. 1 of 2015
Sri Ranilakshmi Ginning Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.
S.F.No.403, Avinashi Road,
Arasur P.O. Coimbatore 641 407
rep by Managing Director P.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
P.B.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore 641 018.
2. The Recovery Officer,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
P.B.No.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore 641 018. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the show cause notice dated
10.02.2015 bearing No.TN/CBE/RECOVERY/3476/2015 and prohibiting the
Respondents from proceeding any further with regard to the show cause notice that was
issued by the second respondent after considering the legality or propriety thereof.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manohar Gupta
for M/s.Gupta and Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel (R1 & R2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
W.P.No.7750 of 2015
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the show cause notice dated
10.02.2015 bearing No.TN/CBE/RECOVERY/3476/2015 and prohibiting the
Respondents from proceeding any further with regard to the show cause notice that was
issued by the second respondent after considering the legality or propriety thereof
2. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner / Management, the decision
with regard to payment of interest and damages have already been decided and that
Employees Provident Fund Organisation is trying to impose twice the rate of interest
and damages, which is not permissible as per rules.
3. A detailed counter has been filed, denying the averments made by the
Management in the affidavit. It is stated that since the Management had not remitted the
dues, a show cause notice was issued against them to show cause as to why a warrant of
arrest should not be issued to them.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. A cursory look at the notice dated 10.02.2015 reveals the fact that it is only the
show cause notice and no decision has yet been arrived at. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in
(2007) 1 SCT 452, has been pleased to lay down as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.7750 of 2015
"It is well settled by a series of decision of this Court that ordinarily
no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice vide Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdish Kumar Singh and
others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse and another in 2004 (1) SCT671 (SC), Ulagappa and
others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others (2001) 10 SCC
639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Dutt Sharma and another in AIR 1987 SC 943
etc."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this very judgment held that in some very rare
and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash the charge sheet or show cause notice,
if it is found to be without jurisdiction, or for some other reason, if it is wholly illegal,
though normally, the High Court should not interfere. In the absence of any such
violation and infringement of rights, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with
such show cause notice impugned in this writ petition.
7. In such view of the matter, without prejudice to the rights of the parties in this
Writ Petition, the Management is expected to appear before the EPFO Authorities and
submit a reply in detail including the one if any already submitted and produce the
relevant records. In case EPFO is satisfied with the explanation, they can drop further
proceeding and, if they are not satisfied, appropriate orders can be passed and they can
proceed further, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Employees Provident
Fund Act, 1952, with regard to any coercive action.
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.7750 of 2015
arr
8. With the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.07.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order /Non speaking order
arr
To:
1.Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
P.B.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore 641 018.
2. The Recovery Officer,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
P.B.No.3875, Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore 641 018.
W.P.No.7750 of 2015
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.7750 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
